Key benchmark in Iraq achieved today! - 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 01-15-2008, 03:41 PM   #41
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


Exactly what light does it shed? Please, enlighten us, Sting.

As I see it, it sheds little to no light. Some of the same people who opposed the 1991 War oppose this war. That is true. If the '91 war and the current one were very much the same kind of war, then you might have something. But they are very much not the same kind of war (other than trying to protect our oil). They were not entered into under similar circumstances, they did not have the same level of support, their missions were not the same, they were not sold the same way, etc, etc.



So we're just continuing in the fine line of bribing and coercing then? Well then everything must be fine!

Except you'll notice that this time around we had a much harder time gaining the same size and strength of a coalition as we did in previous engagements.
It shows that much of the opposition is blindly opposing both conflicts without actually studying the reasons behind them as well as attempting to understand the reasons behind decades old US military strategy supported by both Democratic and Republican Presidents. In fact, the opposition in the United States in 1990 to the first Gulf War was much higher than it was for the 2nd Gulf War, epecially when you look at how Congress voted. The congressional resolution authorizing the first Gulf War passed by a couple of votes while the one authorizing the 2003 war passed in a landslide.

Both wars were entered into under the authorization of the United Nations in order to enforce UN Security Council resolutions vital to the security of the region especially countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. In fact, you could argue that the wars are in fact the same war since Saddam never fully fullfilled the demands of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement and was often in violation of the agreement. The level of support in terms of non-US troops on the ground as a percentage of the effort was very similar. The United States made up 75% of the force in 1991 and 85% of the force in 2003. The missions were very similar as well since the resolutions and requirements against Saddam passed prior to the 1991 war were also involved in the need for military action in 2003. Resolutions like 678 passed before the first Gulf War and the resolution that authorized the first Gulf War were affirmed in the body of resolution 1441 and had language that authorized the use of subsequent military action if Saddam violated any of the resolutions passed then or later as long as they were passed under Chapter VII rules. George Bush Sr. did bring up Iraq's WMD arsonal and the threat that Saddam could develop a nuclear weapon in the "selling" of the first Gulf War.

Notice I put the words bribing and coercing in quotation marks because I do not regard it as that.
__________________

Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 04:10 PM   #42
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


It shows that much of the opposition is blindly opposing both conflicts without actually studying the reasons behind them as well as attempting to understand the reasons behind decades old US military strategy supported by both Democratic and Republican Presidents.


yes, all opposition to the war is blind. is that what you've taken from here? that everybody but you is blind? and you wonder why people get frustrated with you. its quite obvious who the willfully blind person is in this room, and i'll give you a hint -- it isn't Diemen. you'd get so much further if you wouldn't paint your opposition (ie, everyone) in such broad strokes without any nuance. but, i suppose that's to be expected -- the world you describe has no nuance, has no complexity, and most importantly, has no doubt. you're the ONLY one who gets it. it's true. it must be so lonely.

everyone in here knows the emperor has no clothes, but continue to admire the fine embroidery and french cuffs that ties together your silk shirt so fetchingly.
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 06:02 PM   #43
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




yes, all opposition to the war is blind. is that what you've taken from here? that everybody but you is blind? and you wonder why people get frustrated with you. its quite obvious who the willfully blind person is in this room, and i'll give you a hint -- it isn't Diemen. you'd get so much further if you wouldn't paint your opposition (ie, everyone) in such broad strokes without any nuance. but, i suppose that's to be expected -- the world you describe has no nuance, has no complexity, and most importantly, has no doubt. you're the ONLY one who gets it. it's true. it must be so lonely.

everyone in here knows the emperor has no clothes, but continue to admire the fine embroidery and french cuffs that ties together your silk shirt so fetchingly.

I never said that all opposition to the war is blind. Again, I suggest that you stick to the ISSUES being discussed rather than these bizarre attempts to analyze posters in FYM.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 06:22 PM   #44
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,676
Local Time: 08:38 PM
Do you think there are any legimate positions of opposition to this war, Sting?
Diemen is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 08:05 PM   #45
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow



I never said that all opposition to the war is blind. Again, I suggest that you stick to the ISSUES being discussed rather than these bizarre attempts to analyze posters in FYM.




when i discuss the issues, i hit a brick wall. when i analyze the issues, i hit the same brick wall. when we shift and talk about new developments, it's that same brick wall again. the same one that's been there since 2004. the one that doesn't change, the one that doesn't respond to questions and objections but merely blares back into the bullhorn the same sentences that prompted the initial questions and objections. the manner in which something is presented is as relevant as that which is presented, form matters, especially in a *debate* forum, and respect for other posters -- which comes in many forms -- matters as well.

your dismissive, condescending manner -- noted by *many* here -- hasn't won you a single voice of support, it drags down a thread, and most don't even bother to respond to you. perhaps i should do the same.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 08:26 PM   #46
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511






when i discuss the issues, i hit a brick wall. when i analyze the issues, i hit the same brick wall. when we shift and talk about new developments, it's that same brick wall again. the same one that's been there since 2004. the one that doesn't change, the one that doesn't respond to questions and objections but merely blares back into the bullhorn the same sentences that prompted the initial questions and objections. the manner in which something is presented is as relevant as that which is presented, form matters, especially in a *debate* forum, and respect for other posters -- which comes in many forms -- matters as well.

your dismissive, condescending manner -- noted by *many* here -- hasn't won you a single voice of support, it drags down a thread, and most don't even bother to respond to you. perhaps i should do the same.
What really drags down a thread is this type of crap. Does this have anything remotely to do with Iraq? nope Find a topic or an issue your interested in, post your opinion, and move on. Its what the vast majority of people here are able to do.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 08:47 PM   #47
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 09:38 PM
i'll take your word for it, chief, because if there's anyone people love to discuss an issue with -- especially Iraq! -- it's you!
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 08:56 PM   #48
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
What really drags down a thread is this type of crap. Does this have anything remotely to do with Iraq? nope Find a topic or an issue your interested in, post your opinion, and move on. Its what the vast majority of people here are able to do.
But is anything Irvine said there incorrect? I've only seen you posting for a small amount of time, but your absolute refusal to recognize any portion of anyone's argument aside from your own has been quite alienating.

It's perfectly fine to have a reasonable argument for reasons why Iraq wasn't illegal or is successful, but in your posts you brush away any other viewpoints as people "not understanding" or "Democrats hellbent on spinning it into a failure." That "crap" is what drives threads straight into your brick wall more than anything. Instead of replying with your original post worded differently, maybe you should address the points made by the replying poster.

I don't think what Irvine is saying is unreasonable.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 09:07 PM   #49
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


But is anything Irvine said there incorrect? I've only seen you posting for a small amount of time, but your absolute refusal to recognize any portion of anyone's argument aside from your own has been quite alienating.

It's perfectly fine to have a reasonable argument for reasons why Iraq wasn't illegal or is successful, but in your posts you brush away any other viewpoints as people "not understanding" or "Democrats hellbent on spinning it into a failure." That "crap" is what drives threads straight into your brick wall more than anything. Instead of replying with your original post worded differently, maybe you should address the points made by the replying poster.

I don't think what Irvine is saying is unreasonable.
Look at the topic of the thread and look at what your discussing. If there is really a problem that needs to be addressed, a moderator will take care of it.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 09:09 PM   #50
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:38 PM
Give me a break.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 09:10 PM   #51
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
Give me a break.
How about giving the thread a break and return to the topic.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 09:15 PM   #52
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:38 PM
That's a cop-out and you know it. And you'll most certainly reply with some quote from the rules or something, but you know you're dancing around Irvine's point.

Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
It shows that much of the opposition is blindly opposing both conflicts without actually studying the reasons behind them as well as attempting to understand the reasons behind decades old US military strategy supported by both Democratic and Republican Presidents.
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
I never said that all opposition to the war is blind.
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
Do you think there are any legimate positions of opposition to this war, Sting?
I would, however, ask you to answer Diemen's question here, which I think is legitimate. I would be interested to hear your response.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-17-2008, 05:38 AM   #53
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,676
Local Time: 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
Do you think there are any legimate positions of opposition to this war, Sting?
I'm genuinely interested in your opinion on this, Sting.
Diemen is offline  
Old 01-23-2008, 12:38 PM   #54
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 09:38 PM
erm, yeah, is this what's known as "the catch"?



[q]Iraq's New Law on Ex-Baathists Could Bring Another Purge

By Amit R. Paley and Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, January 23, 2008; A01

BAGHDAD -- Maj. Gen. Hussein al-Awadi, a former official in Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, became the commander of the Iraqi National Police despite a 2003 law barring the party from government.

But now, under new legislation promoted as way to return former Baathists to public life, the 56-year-old and thousands like him could be forced out of jobs they have been allowed to hold, according to Iraqi lawmakers and the government agency that oversees ex-Baathists.

"This new law is very confusing," Awadi said. "I don't really know what it means for me."

He is not alone. More than a dozen Iraqi lawmakers, U.S. officials and former Baathists here and in exile expressed concern in interviews that the law could set off a new purge of ex-Baathists, the opposite of U.S. hopes for the legislation.

Approved by parliament this month under pressure from U.S. officials, the law was heralded by President Bush and Iraqi leaders as a way to soothe the deep anger of many ex-Baathists -- primarily Sunnis but also many Shiites such as Awadi -- toward the Shiite-led government.

Yet U.S. officials and even legislators who voted for the measure, which still requires approval by Iraq's presidency council, acknowledge that its impact is hard to assess from its text and will depend on how it is implemented. Some say the law's primary aim is not to return ex-Baathists to work, but to recognize and compensate those harmed by the party. Of the law's eight stated justifications, none mentions reinstating ex-Baathists to their jobs.

"The law is about as clear as mud," said one U.S. senior diplomat.

The confusion has been compounded because the information on former party members comes from the de-Baathification commission headed by Ahmed Chalabi, the former deputy prime minister who as an Iraqi exile sought to convince U.S. officials that Hussein's government had weapons of mass destruction. In light of the absence of such weapons, many Iraqi and U.S. officials are suspicious of his commission's statistics.

In an interview at his lavish home in the Mansour district, Chalabi said the new legislation would drive out some of the former Baathists his commission had allowed to return to government. The new measure, he said, is much harsher than the existing policy and a draft of the law that the United States had encouraged parliament to pass.

"Put this under the category of: Be careful what you wish for," Chalabi said.
'This Law Is Bait'

The new law was supposed to ease the homeward passage of former Baathists such as Muhammed Kareem.

After 35 years as a civil servant in the Oil Ministry, Kareem fled his home in Basra after the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. Four fellow Baathists from the ministry in Basra had turned up dead. Searching for him, militiamen had ransacked Kareem's house.

Kareem, 53, and his family moved to Amman, Jordan, where they live in a sparsely furnished basement apartment. He has one abiding wish: to return to Iraq. But sitting at his kitchen table last week, flipping through a draft of the law, he was despondent.

"This is a bomb on the road of reconciliation," said Kareem, a former director general in the ministry. "This law does not bring anything new. This does not serve national reconciliation that all Iraqis are hoping for. On the contrary, it envisions hostility, hatred, discrimination and sectarian strife."

Kareem, along with other Baathists who were purged from their jobs after the invasion, argues that the law typifies the animosity that Iraq's Shiite-led government has for the bureaucrats of Hussein's regime. They say the climate is nowhere near safe enough for them to identify themselves to the government as former Baathists.

Kareem, who was a senior Baath Party member, said the new law does grant him the right to a pension, which would greatly benefit his family. He has not had a steady salary in five years, and has been living off the charity of friends and relatives, but said he would not attempt to claim the pension.

"This law is bait," he said. "I have to go back to Basra and apply for the pension through several measures. If I get killed, nobody will know who did it."

Kareem and other former Baathists advocate nullifying the law and the concept of de-Baathification in general. They say it discriminates against their political party at a time when other parties have also been associated with militias, death squads and major crimes. Trying to abolish an ideology and outlaw a political party seems to him both impossible and undemocratic.

"Aren't I the son of an Iraqi? Aren't I an Iraqi myself? Don't I have the right to live in Iraq?" he added. "This law is a punishment not only to the Baathists but to his sons and grandsons. So where is the justice in it?"[/q]
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-23-2008, 12:57 PM   #55
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 05:38 PM
THE SURGE IS WORKING !!!!!!!





Quote:
The new flag, top, replaces the three green stars of the old flag,
bottom, representing the "Unity, Freedom, Socialism" motto of Hussein's Baath Party.



of course a five year old with a box of crayons
could have done that in 15 minutes





well it is kind of working

Bush supporters please do not read the following
Quote:
The temporary flag, a one-year stopgap until a more permanent design is selected, will no longer bear the three green stars representing the "unity, freedom, socialism" motto of Hussein's Baath Party. The former leader's handwritten "Allahu akbar" (God is great) will be replaced with an old-style Arabic font
deep is offline  
Old 01-31-2008, 04:55 PM   #56
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
[B]THE SURGE IS WORKING !!!!!!!


yeah, remember that single positive political result of the Surge? you know, the actual goal of the surge (political progress)?

it's not happening.



[q] Iraq VP says won't ratify key Baathists law

By Waleed Ibrahim 2 hours, 46 minutes ago

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's Presidency Council is unlikely to ratify a new law that would give thousands of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party their old jobs back, Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi said on Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The step would be a blow to Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the United States, which praised the law's approval on January 12 and called it a key step to advancing national reconciliation.

Hashemi, a Sunni Arab, said the bill passed by parliament was flawed because it meant many people given jobs after the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam in 2003 would be forced out so ex-Baathists could return.

"We cannot regard this law as a step in the national reconciliation process. The spirit of revenge is so clear in many articles of the law," Hashemi said in an interview.

"It is not only me who objects to signing it, but the whole Presidency Council."

The council consists of President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, Shi'ite Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi, and Hashemi. It must ratify all laws passed by parliament, otherwise they are sent back to the legislature.

The Accountability and Justice Law is one of several being sought by Iraq's minority Sunni Arab community, which was dominant under Saddam.

But many ex-Baathists have already rejoined the military and the civil service in the absence of the law and there have been suggestions they could be purged a second time.

Washington introduced "de-Baathification" under U.S. administrators after the 2003 invasion to rid the military and public service of senior Baath party members. It later acknowledged the measures went too far.

Hashemi said the Presidency Council was coming under pressure from both former Baathists who want their old jobs back and from those currently in the positions.

"The council will call for amendments for a new law," he said. "It is very necessary. Talks are going on."

[/q]
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-31-2008, 05:54 PM   #57
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,676
Local Time: 08:38 PM
You're not giving it enough time, Irvine. This could take 100 years.

And by his silence I can only assume that Sting doesn't believe there are any legitimate positions of opposition to the war.

It must be hard when you're the only one right and everyone else is wrong...
Diemen is offline  
Old 01-31-2008, 06:05 PM   #58
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
You're not giving it enough time, Irvine. This could take 100 years.


indeed. there will be more wars ... oh yes, there will be.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-31-2008, 06:44 PM   #59
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,676
Local Time: 08:38 PM
bomb bomb Iran

When can we start?
Diemen is offline  
Old 01-31-2008, 07:07 PM   #60
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
indeed. there will be more wars ... oh yes, there will be.
Sequel to There Will Be Blood?

"There Will Be War"
__________________

phillyfan26 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 08:38 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
×