Why will the republicans win in 2008?

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by Strongbow


I understand that, but its irrelevant to what I was discussing which is simply Germany's ultimate policy decisions and actions regardless of how they were arrived it domestically. Whether you fault the political situation, the people or something else, I'm looking at the result and saying that as a country, Germany technically could be doing a lot more. Germany is not some impoverished third world country with an under developed political system.

Is this the new American dictate or are may we remain a sovereign nation that makes its own decisions?

Actually it is not, but even if you were to blame that you don't need to look any further than the fact that Germany is not keeping pace with other NATO countries in spending on its military. Defense spending as a percentage of GDP by Germany is currently lower than most other countries in NATO. But Germany still has a more capable and better equiped military than most of the other countries that have sent troops to Iraq as well as most of NATO. Germany has the 4th largest military and 3rd largest Army in NATO. The German deployments to Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Lebanon, and Afghanistan are not so large that the Bundeswehr could not make a contribution to Iraq. The German military currently has 245,702 active members and 161,812 members in the reserve. The number of German military personal currently deployed worldwide is just under 10,000. The German military could make a singificant contribution to Iraq.

If you talked to German soldiers, most wouldn't speak too proudly of how our military is working, and how they often find much to critizise regarding the equipment. The military currently is underfunded and as an administrative organisation wasting resources.
On the other hand, we don't have much interest in increasing our spending. A bit more efficiency would do.
Also you would have to take into account that we don't have any ABC weapons, and especially A weapons are making up a large part of what countries like France are paying for their military.
But even without they might pay more for their military, but that is their good right. We don't want to spend more, and since the 90's gradually reduced our military and plans are to reduce it further.

The figures about our military personnel ignore a key fact: A large part is just doing their required nine months, and when you just do your basic military service you can refuse to going abroad. You have to accept getting sent aboad, and then extent your time in the military or sign up for getting a professional soldier doing service of two years to a lifetime.

Our military reserve certainly won't be counted as being "available", so you can leave them out either.
I would rather have German troops in Somalia, or if things should turn more ugly, Kenya, than in Iraq, and support for those missions certainly is bigger.

The future for Iraq is way too uncertain. Now it might look better, I seriously don't know, but who says that in one year there won't be kind of a counter surge? We didn't bring the mess, and we certainly don't want to be in the middle of a greater mess, thank you.

And I have heard several reports that the situation in Afghanistan isn't that stable, so it would be crazy to stretch our military resources even more. Keep in mind, we are lacking large transportation planes, and the A400M is even getting delayed, and there is already complaints by German soldiers about a lack of timely supplies of basically everything.

In 2008, some the chief differences are the level of Al Quada activity in Iraq as opposed to Afghanistan were there is little or no activity, and then the obvious geographic and natural resource reasons which make Iraq a much more important country in regards to US, German, and global security.

Yes, blood for oil it is commonly called and not exactly a good USP for going there. Quite to the contrary, rather, it's why people are so opposed to the war. I know that Iraq has huge oil reserves, and I know the whole region is crucial to a steady oil supply, and I know it isn't favorable to risk those resources as long as we keep ourselves so dependent on oil, but all this wouldn't get you any support for a military operation.

I can just repeat myself, we are quite open to support Iraq with any means civil, but a military solutions from Germany isn't on the table. We didn't support going in there in 2003, and we didn't see any reason to do so in 2008, and I would say, even if in 2009 there should be a CDU/FDP government, there would be no troops sent into Iraq.

There have been large improvements in Iraq, but outside of the 5 Sunni Arab majority provinces, the other provinces always had lower levels of violence throughout the occupation. The main reductions in violence in 2007 have occured in the 5 Sunni Arab majority provinces where most US troops currently operate. German troops could certainly help with security or alternatively relieve some of the great burden that is on the US military. After all, Germany has one of the largest economies on the planet and benefits directly from the improvements in security in area(the Persian Gulf) so vital to the global economy. The United States and the coalition can eventially accomplish its goals in both Iraq and Afghanistan without the German military, but their contribution would and does help and helps spread the cost and burden of the operations around more which benefits everyone.

We didn't want this war, and now we should help you spread the costs of this mess? No, thanks.
I would prefer investing this money in getting less dependent on oil and instead of making enemies by invading them, help them to get up on their own. Might sound idealistic to you, but I think there are other ways to deal with such problems before going in with armed forces.

And speaking as opportunistically as businessmen are (though I'm becoming an economist), we will benefit from a secure and stable Gulf War region no matter if we pay much money going in there ourselves, or staying out of it. And it might gain us a better cost-benefit ratio.

Additionally, I would say we are a better help the way we are supporting Iraq currently.

There are plenty of other European countries especially in Eastern Europe that would be happy to host US troops and bases in 2008. The fact that the United States continues to have those bases in Germany is actually a benefit to Germany and many Germans do not want to see the United States shift such bases to Poland, Romania, Hungary or Italy.

Yes, and you were just about to leave, but now, as far as I know, are, or have been, re-thinking your relocation plans. If I'm right, most of the plans were scrapped after the assessment showed that despite some of the benefits (testing and training ranges directly neighbouring the living quarters, governments that are blindly following, reduction in costs, closer to the middle east and whatnot) in the end moving there wouldn't be that favorable. Another reason might be that Rumsfeld isn't Minister of Defense any longer.

Also, food supply for the bases mainly comes from Denmark. It sure would be a loss for the regions where those bases are, but I think we have to settle with the fact that one day those bases will be closed.

But nontheless, I'm talking of 2003, when you were about to invade. Back then, you were relying on using your German bases and getting the overflight permissions, as you couldn't relocate overnight. So your relocation plans didn't matter much back then.

The fact remains, your country continues every year to support the continued occupation in Iraq in the United Nations, that was brought about by the coalition invasion in March 2003.

Even Annan said that the war was a violation of the law of nations.
I still hold that we need the UN, and even argue that we now need it even more, and much stronger, but still say that with the Iraq war the UN showed how powerless it still is and how a country like the US can ignore the UN without fearing any repercussions. If it followed closely it's own Charta, it would have to condemn the war strongly and firmly.
But it just is to weak an institution, and that's a shame, and this "support", well, what should we do? We said Don't do it, you did, now should we drop you? That's one of the biggest issues with the UN.
It doesn't change a thing, we won't go in.

The fact remains that Germany will benefit from both a stabilized and developed Iraq as well as a stabilized and developed Afghanistan. Germany has troops in Afghanistan helping in this regard and could indeed have troops in Iraq which would help the mission and Iraq as well as benefit Germany in the long run, given Germany's interdependence with the global economy which is dependent on the security of Persian Gulf Oil.

Yes, and in other cases Schroeder was more than happy to put economic interests over human rights and freedom, like his friendship with Putin and his China policies show us.
Back in 2003 we didn't see it benefitting enough to invade Iraq, and today, for several reasons, our stance hasn't changed.
Our goal at the moment is to getting less dependent on the Persian Gulf region, and Germany isn't a country that is too keen on using it's military for gaining economic benefits. A war for oil isn't backed by our own constitutional laws, and our courts already ruled that according to our laws and our interpretation of the UN Charta the Iraq war is illegal. Any military officer or soldier actively engaging in the Iraq ar would make himself braking law, and thusly a criminal.

I'm pretty certain that we will benefit more if we stay out of such adventures, and we will be better off if we get less dependent of oil, especially Middle Eastern oil, instead of fighting for the last drop.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by Strongbow


I was simply explaining that if Germany was responsible and doing what was in its best interest and that of the world, that they would be involved in Iraq in 2008 like they are in Afghanistan. I don't expect that to happen at all, but was simply explaining the reasons why they should be and that their opposition to putting troops in Iraq in 2008 is a bit of a contradiction to their support in Afghanistan in 2008. The missions in both countries are fundamentally the same in 2008.

They are not! You got attacked out of Afghanistan, with the Taliban hosting Al Quaeda, and we supported you going after those who attacked you on 9/11. This is why we participated in Afghanistan and sent our troops, and this is why we are there even today.
And we are staying there to secure and stabilize Afghanistan, a process which was hindered when your government decided it would be time to go to another war, which had nothing to do with why we are in Afghanistan (Saddam didn't attack you) and which was not a pre-emptive strike, but rather a pre- pre- emptive strike.

Only because it's now 2008 nothing has changed as to why we are in Afghanistan, and neither has anything changed as to why we are not in Iraq.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Diemen


You keep equating Afghanistan and Iraq as if they're the exact same situation. They are anything but.

You have two countries in 2008 that are both trying to develop, politically, economically and form a new military force to secure their countries after having former dictatorships removed by foreign forces. Both are doing so in the face of insurgencies and ethnic conflict that is opposed to the elected governments of both countries. Members of the US military rotating between both conflicts see this and notice a large number of similarities.

Now there are certainly differences in both conflicts, but most of them are at the tactical level. The more general and fundamental nature of both conflicts in 2008 is the same.

But if you think they are "anything but" you should go into some more detail and explain.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


I'd say they are closer to opposites

So why are they closer to being opposite types of conflicts in 2008?

[Diemen]

Originally posted by Strongbow


You have two countries in 2008 that are both trying to develop, politically, economically and form a new military force to secure their countries after having former dictatorships removed by foreign forces. Both are doing so in the face of insurgencies and ethnic conflict that is opposed to the elected governments of both countries. Members of the US military rotating between both conflicts see this and notice a large number of similarities.

Now there are certainly differences in both conflicts, but most of them are at the tactical level. The more general and fundamental nature of both conflicts in 2008 is the same.

But if you think they are "anything but" you should go into some more detail and explain.

The mission might look to be similar right now, but the reasons for entering the two were so entirely different that it is insulting to suggest they are the same and the entire world should be supporting our follies in Iraq because they support our efforts in Afghanistan. If you can't see how our involvement in Afghanistan is fundamentally different than our involvement in Iraq by now, then no amount of explaining will change that.

Besides, I have yet to ever see you change your stance on any subject here no matter how much evidence anyone else brings to the table, so it seems rather pointless.

[BVS]

Yes, they are similar looking now. Now being the key word here. And to get pissy about another country not wanting to join in your mistake by using what they look like now as your argument, just makes you look like a blind bully.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Diemen
If you can't see how our involvement in Afghanistan is fundamentally different than our involvement in Iraq by now, then no amount of explaining will change that.

Besides, I have yet to ever see you change your stance on any subject here no matter how much evidence anyone else brings to the table, so it seems rather pointless.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Diemen


The mission might look to be similar right now, but the reasons for entering the two were so entirely different that it is insulting to suggest they are the same and the entire world should be supporting our follies in Iraq because they support our efforts in Afghanistan. If you can't see how our involvement in Afghanistan is fundamentally different than our involvement in Iraq by now, then no amount of explaining will change that.

Besides, I have yet to ever see you change your stance on any subject here no matter how much evidence anyone else brings to the table, so it seems rather pointless.

I realize the reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were different, but that is not what I was refering to with my point. I've explained how I see the fundamental goals and difficulties faced in both of the post-invasion occupations as being similar. You feel differently and I asked why. No reason to get excited.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Yes, they are similar looking now. Now being the key word here. And to get pissy about another country not wanting to join in your mistake by using what they look like now as your argument, just makes you look like a blind bully.

I was only offering a critical opinion on German foreign/military policy. Is that not allowed?

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega


Is this the new American dictate or are may we remain a sovereign nation that makes its own decisions?

I never indicated otherwise, I was simply stating my opinion about German policy on these issues regardless of how the German people and government came to those positions. Whether it be the German people, or the current balance of power in the German government, I disagree with the choices that Germany has made on several of these issues.

If you talked to German soldiers, most wouldn't speak too proudly of how our military is working, and how they often find much to critizise regarding the equipment. The military currently is underfunded and as an administrative organisation wasting resources.

But even without they might pay more for their military, but that is their good right. We don't want to spend more, and since the 90's gradually reduced our military and plans are to reduce it further

Correcting problems of waste is one way to improve such problems, but ultimately extra spending may be required. The Nuclear programs of France and the United Kingdom, only account for a fraction of their defense spending. Conventional military spending is much more expensive and takes up a greater portion of the budget. In my opinion Germany should be making a larger contribution to NATO as well as conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Germany benefits directly from the security provided by other countries to insure a stable global economic environment and it seems strange for one of the worlds largest and richest countries to have such a low level of spending on defense as a percentage of GDP compared to most other NATO countries some of whom are not nearly as wealthy as Germany. But I understand Germany views the situation differently.

The figures about our military personnel ignore a key fact: A large part is just doing their required nine months, and when you just do your basic military service you can refuse to going abroad. You have to accept getting sent aboad, and then extent your time in the military or sign up for getting a professional soldier doing service of two years to a lifetime.

Well, in the US military, 5 or 6 months is barely enough time to get someone through basic training and then through their branch specialty school like Armor, Infantry, Artillery etc. I understand the terms of service for those that are drafted in the German military, but the Germans must have enough trained manpower to fill 5 Armored Divisions, 4 Brigades, an Air Mobile Division and several smaller units. The Leopard II is one of the most advanced tanks in the world and I'm sure that anyone manning such a tank has recieved months of proper training. I think the German military does have significant number of military units they could be sending abroad if they wanted to, despite the short terms of service for draftees.

The future for Iraq is way too uncertain. Now it might look better, I seriously don't know, but who says that in one year there won't be kind of a counter surge? We didn't bring the mess, and we certainly don't want to be in the middle of a greater mess, thank you.

Well, you could basically say the same things about Afghanistan as well.

And I have heard several reports that the situation in Afghanistan isn't that stable, so it would be crazy to stretch our military resources even more. Keep in mind, we are lacking large transportation planes, and the A400M is even getting delayed, and there is already complaints by German soldiers about a lack of timely supplies of basically everything.

Again, if Germany were actually spending at the average level of other NATO countries it would have the transport planes you are talking about. Italy does not have as strong a military as Germany, but it has sent troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq. Germany has nearly 3,000 troops in Afghanistan, supporting 3,000 troops in Iraq should not be that difficult for Germany.

Yes, blood for oil it is commonly called and not exactly a good USP for going there. Quite to the contrary, rather, it's why people are so opposed to the war. I know that Iraq has huge oil reserves, and I know the whole region is crucial to a steady oil supply, and I know it isn't favorable to risk those resources as long as we keep ourselves so dependent on oil, but all this wouldn't get you any support for a military operation.

The price you pay for energy impacts the price of nearly everything you pay for on a daily basis including food. Finding alternatives to dependency on energy from the Persian Gulf is important, but will take time. But during such a transformational process which will take time, you can't abandon the security of the energy that keeps your society and way of life going.

We didn't want this war, and now we should help you spread the costs of this mess? No, thanks.

The war benefited Germany by insuring the security of Persian Gulf Oil which Europe including Germany is certainly dependent on. One reason Germany is apart of NATO is because of the benefits of collective security which does spread the cost of security around and lessons the burden for each individual country. Germany will be impacted by events in the Persian Gulf Region whether it likes it or not, which is all the more reason why Germany should be involved regardless of the dispute over invading in 2003.

And speaking as opportunistically as businessmen are (though I'm becoming an economist), we will benefit from a secure and stable Gulf War region no matter if we pay much money going in there ourselves, or staying out of it. And it might gain us a better cost-benefit ratio.

That is certainly the road that Germany is taking with Iraq.

I still hold that we need the UN, and even argue that we now need it even more, and much stronger, but still say that with the Iraq war the UN showed how powerless it still is and how a country like the US can ignore the UN without fearing any repercussions. If it followed closely it's own Charta, it would have to condemn the war strongly and firmly.

On the contrary, the United States went through the UN to get another resolution to authorize the invasion of Iraq in resolution 1441 and has recieved authorization for the occupation every summer since 2003 from the UN. Everyone agrees that the initial military action in Bosnia and Kosovo had no UN authorization and was indeed a clear violation of the Charta unlike Iraq, yet the Germans supported both those operations and later sent troops.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Strongbow

On the contrary, the United States went through the UN to get another resolution to authorize the invasion of Iraq in resolution 1441 and has recieved authorization for the occupation every summer since 2003 from the UN. Everyone agrees that the initial military action in Bosnia and Kosovo had no UN authorization and was indeed a clear violation of the Charta unlike Iraq, yet the Germans supported both those operations and later sent troops.

it's impossible to have a discussion with someone who keeps repeating falsehoods like the above that have been thoroughly debunked years ago on these very pages.

so, instead of wasting my time and energy typing out coherent arguments, i'm just going to start carpet bombing with posts from various pundits and newspaper articles, with the hopes that perhaps these will be read, unlike my (and many others) painstaking previous posts. it's never a discussion, no give and take, no "yes, you have a point but ...," and the worst thing of all -- taking a position and distorting it, and then saying that everyone who doesn't agree with you is in lockstep with said distorted position. and using polls or the NIE when they work for you, but when they don't, they're wrong. it boggles my mind when someone is confronted with the fact that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and then he squeaked out a less than 2% victory in 2004 and this is presented as "crushing" victories because he received (gasp!!!) a "majority" of the popular vote. it doesn't change the down-to-the-wire nature of both these elections. it's just a means of crafting a soundbyte that's throughly meaningless when put in any sort of context, and so these threads seem to devolve into just a cut-and-pasting contest, so i can't think of a reason to do anything else.

(i mean, seriously, 1441? you're just going to embarrass yourself again):



[q]TOP 10 MYTHS ABOUT IRAQ FOR 2007

10. Myth: The US public no longer sees Iraq as a central issue in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Fact: In a recent ABC News/ Washington Post poll, Iraq and the economy were virtually tied among voters nationally, with nearly a quarter of voters in each case saying it was their number one issue. The economy had become more important to them than in previous months (in November only 14% said it was their most pressing concern), but Iraq still rivals it as an issue!


9. Myth: There have been steps toward religious and political reconciliation in Iraq in 2007.

Fact: The government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has for the moment lost the support of the Sunni Arabs in parliament. The Sunnis in his cabinet have resigned. Even some Shiite parties have abandoned the government. Sunni Arabs, who are aware that under his government Sunnis have largely been ethnically cleansed from Baghdad, see al-Maliki as a sectarian politician uninterested in the welfare of Sunnis.

8. Myth: The US troop surge stopped the civil war that had been raging between Sunni Arabs and Shiites in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad.

Fact: The civil war in Baghdad escalated during the US troop escalation. Between January, 2007, and July, 2007, Baghdad went from 65% Shiite to 75% Shiite. UN polling among Iraqi refugees in Syria suggests that 78% are from Baghdad and that nearly a million refugees relocated to Syria from Iraq in 2007 alone. This data suggests that over 700,000 residents of Baghdad have fled this city of 6 million during the US 'surge,' or more than 10 percent of the capital's population. Among the primary effects of the 'surge' has been to turn Baghdad into an overwhelmingly Shiite city and to displace hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from the capital.



7. Myth: Iran was supplying explosively formed projectiles (a deadly form of roadside bomb) to Salafi Jihadi (radical Sunni) guerrilla groups in Iraq.

Fact: Iran has not been proved to have sent weapons to any Iraqi guerrillas at all. It certainly would not send weapons to those who have a raging hostility toward Shiites. (Iran may have supplied war materiel to its client, the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq (ISCI), which was then sold off from warehouses because of graft, going on the arms market and being bought by guerrillas and militiamen.

6. Myth: The US overthrow of the Baath regime and military occupation of Iraq has helped liberate Iraqi women.

Fact: Iraqi women have suffered significant reversals of status, ability to circulate freely, and economic situation under the Bush administration.



5. Myth: Some progress has been made by the Iraqi government in meeting the "benchmarks" worked out with the Bush administration.

Fact: in the words of Democratic Senator Carl Levin, "Those legislative benchmarks include approving a hydrocarbon law, approving a debaathification law, completing the work of a constitutional review committee, and holding provincial elections. Those commitments, made 1 1/2 years ago, which were to have been completed by January of 2007, have not yet been kept by the Iraqi political leaders despite the breathing space the surge has provided."



4. Myth: The Sunni Arab "Awakening Councils," who are on the US payroll, are reconciling with the Shiite government of PM Nuri al-Maliki even as they take on al-Qaeda remnants.

Fact: In interviews with the Western press, Awakening Council tribesmen often speak of attacking the Shiites after they have polished off al-Qaeda. A major pollster working in Iraq observed,

' Most of the recent survey results he has seen about political reconciliation, Warshaw said, are "more about [Iraqis] reconciling with the United States within their own particular territory, like in Anbar. . . . But it doesn't say anything about how Sunni groups feel about Shiite groups in Baghdad." Warshaw added: "In Iraq, I just don't hear statements that come from any of the Sunni, Shiite or Kurdish groups that say 'We recognize that we need to share power with the others, that we can't truly dominate.' " ' '

The polling shows that "the Iraqi government has still made no significant progress toward its fundamental goal of national reconciliation."



3. Myth: The Iraqi north is relatively quiet and a site of economic growth.

Fact: The subterranean battle among Kurds, Turkmen and Arabs for control of the oil-rich Kirkuk province makes the Iraqi north a political mine field. Kurdistan now also hosts the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) guerrillas that sneak over the border and kill Turkish troops. The north is so unstable that the Iraqi north is now undergoing regular bombing raids from Turkey.

2. Myth: Iraq has been "calm" in fall of 2007 and the Iraqi public, despite some grumbling, is not eager for the US to depart.

Fact: in the past 6 weeks, there have been an average of 600 attacks a month, or 20 a day, which has held steady since the beginning of November. About 600 civilians are being killed in direct political violence per month, but that number excludes deaths of soldiers and police. Across the board, Iraqis believe that their conflicts are mainly caused by the US military presence and they are eager for it to end.

1. Myth: The reduction in violence in Iraq is mostly because of the escalation in the number of US troops, or "surge."

Fact: Although violence has been reduced in Iraq, much of the reduction did not take place because of US troop activity. Guerrilla attacks in al-Anbar Province were reduced from 400 a week to 100 a week between July, 2006 and July, 2007. But there was no significant US troop escalation in al-Anbar. Likewise, attacks on British troops in Basra have declined precipitously since they were moved out to the airport away from population centers. But this change had nothing to do with US troops.
[/q]

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega


They are not! You got attacked out of Afghanistan, with the Taliban hosting Al Quaeda, and we supported you going after those who attacked you on 9/11. This is why we participated in Afghanistan and sent our troops, and this is why we are there even today.
And we are staying there to secure and stabilize Afghanistan, a process which was hindered when your government decided it would be time to go to another war, which had nothing to do with why we are in Afghanistan (Saddam didn't attack you) and which was not a pre-emptive strike, but rather a pre- pre- emptive strike.

Only because it's now 2008 nothing has changed as to why we are in Afghanistan, and neither has anything changed as to why we are not in Iraq.

While the reasons for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are different, the post-invasion Occupation goals and difficulties for both are very similar. Despite any country's disagreement with the initial invasion of Iraq, it seems foolish to continue to use the reasons of "Saddam was not a threat" etc for not helping the Iraqi's establish a stable government and society for their people, in a region that is so vital to the rest of the world including Germany.

[BVS]

Originally posted by Strongbow


I was only offering a critical opinion on German foreign/military policy. Is that not allowed?

Yes, but it came off as attacking by saying, "your country this", "your country that", and "only for political BS reasons"...

[BVS]

Originally posted by Strongbow


While the reasons for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are different, the post-invasion Occupation goals and difficulties for both are very similar. Despite any country's disagreement with the initial invasion of Iraq, it seems foolish to continue to use the reasons of "Saddam was not a threat" etc for not helping the Iraqi's establish a stable government and society for their people, in a region that is so vital to the rest of the world including Germany.

Whereas I can understand this line of logic I don't agree with it... It's basically like saying, listen guys I know you think I made a big mistake but you should really help me out financially and with your lives to clean up this mess I got in because it will really help you out, I promise.

[Strongbow]

"it's impossible to have a discussion with someone who keeps repeating falsehoods like the above that have been thoroughly debunked years ago on these very pages."

"so, instead of wasting my time and energy typing out coherent arguments, i'm just going to start carpet bombing with posts from various pundits and newspaper articles, with the hopes that perhaps these will be read, unlike my (and many others) previous posts."

"(i mean, seriously, 1441? you're just going to embarrass yourself again):"

Hey, the point of the UN and the Iraq war came up in the recent discussion. Its an open and shut case in my opinion and while some good debates have appeared here and in other places, there is nothing in them that even remotely came close to debunking the legal justification for the war. Colin Powell is not embarrassed by it and went on the Barbara Walters show and stated his support for the use of force to remove Saddam from power given his serious violations of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions vital to the security of the Persian Gulf Region.

[Irvine511]

you see?

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Irvine511
you see?

it's impossible to have a discussion with someone who keeps repeating falsehoods like the above that have been thoroughly debunked years ago on these very pages.

so, instead of wasting my time and energy typing out coherent arguments, i'm just going to start carpet bombing with posts from various pundits and newspaper articles, with the hopes that perhaps these will be read, unlike my (and many others) painstaking previous posts. it's never a discussion, no give and take, no "yes, you have a point but ...," and the worst thing of all -- taking a position and distorting it, and then saying that everyone who doesn't agree with you is in lockstep with said distorted position. and using polls or the NIE when they work for you, but when they don't, they're wrong. it boggles my mind when someone is confronted with the fact that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and then he squeaked out a less than 2% victory in 2004 and this is presented as "crushing" victories because he received (gasp!!!) a "majority" of the popular vote. it doesn't change the down-to-the-wire nature of both these elections. it's just a means of crafting a soundbyte that's throughly meaningless when put in any sort of context, and so these threads seem to devolve into just a cut-and-pasting contest, so i can't think of a reason to do anything else.

I see someone that needs to relax and not worry about others perceived posting behavior. Its a message board on a U2 fan website. Post your opinion on the ISSUE and move on.

[Diemen]

You're like a skipping record player. It gets tiresome.

[maycocksean]

Originally posted by Strongbow


I realize the reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were different, but that is not what I was refering to with my point. I've explained how I see the fundamental goals and difficulties faced in both of the post-invasion occupations as being similar. You feel differently and I asked why. No reason to get excited.

The reason people have such radically different attitudes towards Iraq and Afghanistan have everything to do with the reasons they were invaded.

Yes, they are very similar BUT many people see the blood and treasure invested in Afghanistan as "worth it" but they don't see that same investment as "worth it" in Iraq. Your argument needs to be not "the situations are very similar", but why both are equally worthy of our blood and treasure. And your case, IMHO, would be much stronger if you would admit, for example that things have really been bungled in Iraq and we have created a lot of problems there (like the presence of Al Qaeda in that country) that weren't there before, rather than trying to have it both ways. You want Iraq to be this brilliant shining success from the beginning and yet be this tortuous thing that will take years and years to fully resolve and it just doesn't sell. I don't believe you. Not for a minute. Instead, I really think you're employed to spread propaganda in Interference. I hear the argument that things in Iraq are now so fragile that we can't just pull out tomorrow (I think every presidential candidate knows it too), but to try to argue at the same time that it's been nothing but roses all along is ludicrous.

People would feel very differently about the "worthiness" of the effort in Iraq if the 9/11 terrorists had been trained and launched from Iraq or if we'd found huge hidden caches of weapons of mass destruction. Neitherof those things are true and as a result most people will continue to believe that Iraq was--and is--a mistake regardless of how "similar" it is to Afghanistan or Bosnia or anywhere else.

[Diemen]

Very well put, sean. As usual.