US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part Catorce!

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Strongbow


Is that how you also feel about the nearly 500 Americans that have died serving in Afghanistan, that "Bush killed them"?

yes.

and i say that for you, because you, and ONLY you, think that Iraq and Afghanistan are exactly the same thing.

so, to keep it simple, yes.

but, in reality, it's more complex than that, one being a war that was pretty much deemed a necessary response to 9-11 right up until we diverted resources away from Afghanistan when they had OBL cornered in the Tora Bora Mountains in December of 2001.

Iraq never, ever should have happened, and had there been any other president in office, Iraq would never, ever have happened, certainly not in the ass backwards bone-headed arrogant wasteful careless and destructive manner that it did.

that is Bush's war. only Bush felt this was worth going to war over.

but if you'd like to belive eth same thing about Afghanistan, go right ahead.

keep it simple.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Infinitum98


Yea, he was. They are both Muslim, and both are anti-U.S., hence they must be involved together in 9/11, right?

one was a socialist secularist, the other a religious fundamentalist.

one wanted nothing to do with the other.

[2861U2]

Originally posted by Irvine511

and had there been any other president in office, Iraq would never

How can you be so sure? Crystal ball?

Originally posted by Irvine511
only Bush felt this was worth going to war over.

What are you talking about? Most people thought this war was justified. Most Americans did at the time. Most members of Congress did at the time- or at least until things started going bad and they backed away from their vote.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by 2861U2


How can you be so sure? Crystal ball?

i'm sure.

What are you talking about? Most people thought this war was justified. Most Americans did at the time. Most members of Congress did at the time- or at least until things started going bad and they backed away from their vote.

no, no, no.

Americans thought the war was "justified" under the premise that SH had WMDs and was going to give them to "terrorists" and float a bomb up the east river and lower the upper east side. THAT is how the case was made to the American people -- fear of Saddam's weapons capacities, and don't let anybody tell you any different. variations on this theme were made to different audiences, but look at ANY of Condi's and Cheney's and Rumsfeld's speeches from 2002-3, and all you will find are references to Saddam's WMD capacities and "mushroom clouds" and "9-11."

the WMDs turned out to be bogus. totally false. and the American public was manipulated and the hurt and fear and sadness of 9-11 was ruthlessly manipulated to get the country into a war that was always only about oil. just talk to STING, he'll tell you it's only about the oil. but oil would never, ever have garnered the administration enough support to invade, as most Americans would be fine sending soldiers to defend *us* but they would not be fine sending their kids to die to defend *oil*.

the deterioration of the security situation due to the total absence of post-war planing, total incompetence of the Bush administration, and the on-going civil war between the Sunnis and the Shia just compound the original dissatisfaction with the war which started with the realization that the American public had been lied to, that WMDs were a fantasy, the books were cooked, and that this has been the greatest failure of intelligence in our lifetimes.

you can say "Germany and France agreed with the intelligence," which is only partially true. everyone thought that Saddam had WMDs. that is true. but there was no agreement on the success of containment, or the success of UN weapons inspectors who were pulled out of Iraq in order for the US to invade. and, finally, there was NO agreement on the "actionable" nature of the intelligence. it is not a science. some intelligence is better than others. and you act on the best intelligence there is, you don't shape intelligence to support whatever you've already decided the action is going to be.

[2861U2]

"Nancy Reagan for McCain, top source tells Drudge: She adores him, and is fully supporting him in her private life. She will not publicly endorse."

[BVS]

Originally posted by 2861U2

What are you talking about? Most people thought this war was justified. Most Americans did at the time. Most members of Congress did at the time- or at least until things started going bad and they backed away from their vote.

Spin, spin, spin...

Most fell for it.

[2861U2]

Obama most liberal senator:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...t_liberal.html

[2861U2]

Top Al-Qaeda Commander in Afghanistan Killed:


CAIRO, Egypt — One Al Qaeda's top commanders in Afghanistan, Abu Laith al-Libi was killed according to a Web site used by militant groups, reported the Washington-based SITE Institute which monitors the internet.

While the claim could not be verified independently, the announcement appeared as a banner in a section of the Web site reserved for affiliated militant organizations.

"As the banner was posted ... by a webmaster of the forum, it seems as if the announcement of his death has been confirmed to the forum administrators," noted SITE in its statement.

Al-Libi was an Al Qaeda training camp leader who has appeared in many Internet videos and who the U.S. says was likely behind the Feb. 2007 bombing at the U.S. base at Bagram during a visit by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney that killed 23 people.

A knowledgeable Western official said that "it appears at this point that Al-Libi has met his demise," but declined to talk about the circumstances. "It was a major success in taking one of the top terrorists in the world off the street," the official said. He added that the death occurred "within the last few days."

Al-Libi was a key link between the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

He was listed among the 12 most-wanted men the U.S. offered a US$200,000 reward for five.

Pakistani counterterrorism officials say al-Libi — "the Libyan" in Arabic language — has served as an Al Qaeda spokesman and commander in eastern Afghanistan. They say they have no information on his current whereabouts.

Al Qaeda's media wing, al-Sahab, released a video interview with a bearded man identified as al-Libi in spring 2007. In it, the militant accused Shiite Muslims of fighting alongside American forces in Iraq, and claimed that mujahideen would crush foreign troops in Afghanistan. Al-Libi made no reference to the Feb. 27 attack at Bagram.

Maj. Chris Belcher, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, said last year that al-Libi was a guerrilla fighter "knowledgeable about how to conduct suicide bombing missions and how to inflict the most civilian casualties." He had probably directed "one or more terror training camps."

In a tacit admission that terror camps have continued to operate on Afghan soil since the Taliban regime's ouster more than five years ago, Belcher said al-Libi had been the subject of "especially close focus" by U.S. intelligence since 2005, when U.S. forces destroyed a militant training camp believed set up by al-Libi in the eastern province of Khost.

But he described al-Libi as "transient," moving where the Libyan thinks he can count on support.

"Terrorists like al-Libi use the rugged terrain of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to conceal themselves while they plan violent insurgent activities. Our sources indicate that Abu Laith al-Libi favors tribal regions, including North Waziristan," Belcher said.

North Waziristan is a lawless enclave in neighboring Pakistan where last year the Pakistani government reached a peace deal with pro-Taliban militants. U.S. officials have since expressed concern that Al Qaeda could be regrouping in Pakistan's border zone.

[joyfulgirl]

Obama's speaking here tomorrow night. Too bad I'll be out of town. It would have been interesting to see how I felt about him in person. I definitely would have gotten tickets, too, since because of my work I was included on an early invitation list. Oh well. I'll have to hear about it from my colleagues.

[U2democrat]

Aw too bad you won't get to see him. Whether you like him or not, seeing him speak in person is quite an experience.

I'll be seeing him, and possibly Hillary as well Feb 9

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Irvine511
Americans thought the war was "justified" under the premise that SH had WMDs and was going to give them to "terrorists" and float a bomb up the east river and lower the upper east side. THAT is how the case was made to the American people -- fear of Saddam's weapons capacities, and don't let anybody tell you any different. variations on this theme were made to different audiences, but look at ANY of Condi's and Cheney's and Rumsfeld's speeches from 2002-3, and all you will find are references to Saddam's WMD capacities and "mushroom clouds" and "9-11."

the WMDs turned out to be bogus. totally false. and the American public was manipulated and the hurt and fear and sadness of 9-11 was ruthlessly manipulated to get the country into a war that was always only about oil. just talk to STING, he'll tell you it's only about the oil. but oil would never, ever have garnered the administration enough support to invade, as most Americans would be fine sending soldiers to defend *us* but they would not be fine sending their kids to die to defend *oil*.

the deterioration of the security situation due to the total absence of post-war planing, total incompetence of the Bush administration, and the on-going civil war between the Sunnis and the Shia just compound the original dissatisfaction with the war which started with the realization that the American public had been lied to, that WMDs were a fantasy, the books were cooked, and that this has been the greatest failure of intelligence in our lifetimes.

you can say "Germany and France agreed with the intelligence," which is only partially true. everyone thought that Saddam had WMDs. that is true. but there was no agreement on the success of containment, or the success of UN weapons inspectors who were pulled out of Iraq in order for the US to invade. and, finally, there was NO agreement on the "actionable" nature of the intelligence. it is not a science. some intelligence is better than others. and you act on the best intelligence there is, you don't shape intelligence to support whatever you've already decided the action is going to be.

Well put.

[martha]

I'm proud to say that I never fell for the pro-war hookum.

[anitram]

Originally posted by martha
I'm proud to say that I never fell for the pro-war hookum.

Neither did most of the rest of the world...

[phillyfan26]

I did, though I was 12 and lacked the cynicism of today's PF26.

Hopefully you can all forgive young PF26.

[Irvine511]

and Michael Moore was indeed right.

[q]We like non-fiction and we live in fictitious times.

We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious President.

We -- We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons.

Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or the fictitious of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush.
[/q]



i mean, he was right about everything. from the duct tape or the orange alerts -- which Tom Ridge has admitted were fabrications and political tools -- he was right. and he said so in early March 2003.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by anitram


Neither did most of the rest of the world...

obviously not the citizens of Nicaragua or the Dominican Republic. they wholeheartedly believed the good and virtuous intelligence. after all they sent troops -- this is proof of everyone's agreement with the danger that Saddam presented to the world.

[martha]

Originally posted by phillyfan26
I did, though I was 12

Being 12 lets you get away with a lot.

[BVS]

Originally posted by 2861U2
Obama most liberal senator:

Is this suppose to be a bad thing?

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Irvine511





Americans thought the war was "justified" under the premise that SH had WMDs and was going to give them to "terrorists" and float a bomb up the east river and lower the upper east side. THAT is how the case was made to the American people -- fear of Saddam's weapons capacities, and don't let anybody tell you any different. variations on this theme were made to different audiences, but look at ANY of Condi's and Cheney's and Rumsfeld's speeches from 2002-3, and all you will find are references to Saddam's WMD capacities and "mushroom clouds" and "9-11."

The single most important document that fully embodies the case for war is resolution 1441, not the cherry picked words in speaches liberals like to choose from during the time period. Americans have known about Saddam and the threat he has posed to the global energy supply and global economy for years. Thats why they supported the 1991 Gulf War which saw the largest deployment of US military forces since World War II, and its why they supported the US and other countries best efforts to try and contain Saddam in the intervening years from 1992 to 2002. There are many other regimes in the world that have WMD or could have WMD, but what makes Saddam different is his actions and behavior in threatening the global economy, his massive use of WMD, his proximity to the planets vital natural resources, and his unwillingness to comply with 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations.

the WMDs turned out to be bogus. totally false. and the American public was manipulated and the hurt and fear and sadness of 9-11 was ruthlessly manipulated to get the country into a war that was always only about oil. just talk to STING, he'll tell you it's only about the oil. but oil would never, ever have garnered the administration enough support to invade, as most Americans would be fine sending soldiers to defend *us* but they would not be fine sending their kids to die to defend *oil*.

I got news for you, the 1991 Gulf War that involved the largest deployment of US military forces anywhere in the world since World War II had nothing to do with defending United States Soil. It was about defending the oil reserves in the Persian Gulf that are so vital to the average American citizens way of life. The American public understood that and supported the 1991 Gulf war. So this idea that Americans "would not be fine with sending their kids to die to defend oil" is complete BS.

Most of the American public understands how important oil is to the US and global economy. The United States has been committed to defending such reserves of oil for 60 years now. Jimmy Carter even threatened to use Nuclear Weapons to defend the Persian Gulf! Its the one area of the world that the United States would defend almost without question and its been like that for decades!

The WMD threat was not bogus at all! Thousands of stocks that Saddam was required to account for remain unaccounted for according to the UN Weapons inspectors and the US military. In addition, multiple programs related to the production of WMD that are in total violation of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire terms were found after the country was extensively searched by the US military following Saddams removal from power. Even if Saddam did not actually have WMD at the time of the invasion which has not been proven, these programs show that it was still without a doubt his intention to build up such an arsonal that he could use to threaten the region and the world. With the sanctions and weapons embargo in ruins in late 2002, invasion and removal of Saddam was an absolute necessity.

the deterioration of the security situation due to the total absence of post-war planing, total incompetence of the Bush administration, and the on-going civil war between the Sunnis and the Shia just compound the original dissatisfaction with the war which started with the realization that the American public had been lied to, that WMDs were a fantasy, the books were cooked, and that this has been the greatest failure of intelligence in our lifetimes

The American public was not lied to and it was never incumbent upon the United States or any coalition ally to find WMD stocks after the war in order to justify the war. The war was clearly justified based on Saddam's violations of 17 UN security council resolutions vital to the security of the region and the planet. VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT is the key term here, and its the red line when it comes to taking decisive military action. The Coalition was not going to wait for Saddam to repeat the events of August 1990 before it acted in a decisive action which is why the security council resolutions were passed under Chapter VII rules and not Chapter VI rules, which meant that military force could be used to enforce the resolutions if Saddam did not comply.

Saddam has used WMD more times against his people and his neighbors than any other single leader in history. Its not a fantasy that Saddam has failed to account for 500 pounds of Mustard Gas, 500 pounds of Nerve Gas, 1,000 liters of Anthrax as well as thousands of other stocks. Its not a fantasy that the US military found active programs related to the production of WMD that were in clear violation of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire terms. Its not a fantasy that Saddam had launched 4 unprovoked invasions and attacks of 4 different countries in the region and still had nearly half a million troops, 3,000 tanks, over 3,000 armored personal carriers, 2,000 Artillery pieces, 300 combat aircraft, 100 Helicopters and some unmanned drones.


There have obviously been mistakes in the occupation of Iraq but that in no way changes the necessity of removing Saddam and the need to stay in Iraq long enough to build a stable country that does not threaten its neighbors and will not require the US military to return for an even more costly war years later.

you can say "Germany and France agreed with the intelligence," which is only partially true. everyone thought that Saddam had WMDs. that is true. but there was no agreement on the success of containment, or the success of UN weapons inspectors who were pulled out of Iraq in order for the US to invade. and, finally, there was NO agreement on the "actionable" nature of the intelligence. it is not a science. some intelligence is better than others. and you act on the best intelligence there is, you don't shape intelligence to support whatever you've already decided the action is going to be.

The facts as of 2002 show that there were NO sanctions or weapons embargo covering the Syrian/Iraq border at all! NOTHING! The facts also show that there were huge holes and violations along the Turkish/Iraq border, the Iranian/Iraq border, the Jordan/Iraq border and to a lesser extent, the Saudi/Iraq border as well. Countries like France, Germany, an Russia violated the flight ban and started in the late 1990s and the early part of this decade to actually weaken the sanctions and embargo regime. Even if containment was a serious option, it relied on full proof sanctions and a weapons embargo that were essentially dead by 2002.

But the most important issue here is Saddam's willingness to comply and all the evidence shows that he was unwilling which meant that he had to be removed. The inspectors cannot disarm Saddam or prevent him from getting WMD unless Saddam is willing to cooperate. If Saddam had been willing to cooperate, he would have shown the inspectors the programs he had running at the time related to the production of WMD when the inspectors first got on the ground after having been blocked from entering the country for four years! He also would have accounted for the thousands of stocks of WMD that UN inspectors said he had not done so in clear violation of the UN resolutions and Gulf War ceacefire.

US military action against Iraq throughout the 1990s including Desert Fox in 1998 was not based on specific technical intelligence, but on Saddam's compliance or lack there of with the UN Security Council Resolutions and the Gulf War Ceacefire that he signed on to.

Colin Powell said it best:

"It is not incumbent upon the United States to prove that Saddam has WMD, it is incumbent upon Saddam to prove that he does not have WMD" through compliance with the ceacefire and UN resolutions.

Saddam never did this and had no intention of doing so, and that is why he had to be removed. Whether or not WMD A was found under building B was irrelevant to military action in the 1990s and was irrelevent to the invasion and removal of Saddam in 2003. Verifiable Disarment and compliance with the ceacefire and resolutions was the most important determining factor for military action, not specific intelligence which has always had questionable value. All the intelligence prior to the first Gulf War on Saddam's WMD proved to be wrong, and the USA discovered he was 1 year from a nuclear weapon instead of 10 years. The war was approved by the United Nations in resolution 1441 along with resolutions 687, and 678, and the occupation has been approved by the United Nations every summer since 2003.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Irvine511




yes.

and i say that for you, because you, and ONLY you, think that Iraq and Afghanistan are exactly the same thing.

so, to keep it simple, yes.

but, in reality, it's more complex than that, one being a war that was pretty much deemed a necessary response to 9-11 right up until we diverted resources away from Afghanistan when they had OBL cornered in the Tora Bora Mountains in December of 2001.

Iraq never, ever should have happened, and had there been any other president in office, Iraq would never, ever have happened, certainly not in the ass backwards bone-headed arrogant wasteful careless and destructive manner that it did.

that is Bush's war. only Bush felt this was worth going to war over.

but if you'd like to belive eth same thing about Afghanistan, go right ahead.

keep it simple.

Removing Saddam was an absolute necessity, and the need to stay and rebuild Iraq to prevent it from becoming a threat again is just as necessary as the same operation going on in Afghanistan.

Potential presidents from Colin Powell to John McCain all would have removed Saddam from power. Both of them supported the decision to remove Saddam in 2003 and still do today. Both of them understand that rebuilding Iraq is just as vital if not more vital than rebuilding Afghanistan.

The United States never diverted any significant military resources away from Afghanistan in order to invade Iraq. Deployment for the invasion of Iraq did not start until August of 2002 over 6 months after Tora Bora. Even then, only a few brigades of the 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division were deployed to Kuwait. All of the other Brigades including those from the First Marine MEF did not start to deploy to Kuwait until after the first week of January 2003.

In addition, the United States DOUBLED the size of its military forces in Afghanistan as it started to begin the deployment of troops to Kuwait for the invasion of Iraq.


You have two countries that both face political problems, sectarian conflict, active insurgencies, terrorism, economic hardship, and are trying to build strong security forces, and develop functioning and capable governments to provide services to the people. Iraq is more important though do to its natural resources and proximity to the Persian Gulf, unlike Afghanistan. It also would be easier for Al Quadia to establish a base in a country where they speak the language and are the same ethnicity unlike Afghanistan where they are foreigners easily spotted by the locals.

It would be interesting to see Obama or Clinton address why they support completely different policies in two countries that are facing the same difficulties and threats and are both vital to US and global security in 2008. Unfortunately, no one has challenged them on that issue, primarily because to many are stuck in the simple minded arguement about the reasons for the initial invasions of each country, so much so that they can't see the situation and security realities of 2008 in both countries.