What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What would happen if

  • Thread starter fc3srx713b
  • Start date
  • #181
For someone accusing others of being unable to frame and arguement, you take some liberties yourself. First, you assume that "liberals" would do nothing about terrorism. This is untrue. Second, you imply that the only alternative to attacking Iraq is to be soft on terrorism.

Let me remind you that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were not Iraqi. Nor did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11, despite the best lies of our Dear Leader. In fact, our efforts to track down and capture those responsible for the terrorism we faced on both 9/11 and the previous World Trade Center attack led to Afghanistan, and then back to Saudi Arabia, where the ideological basis for radical Islam begins. Most liberals and Democrats were unanimously in favor of the toppling of the Taliban, who harbored and supported Al Qaeda.

Further, the liberals and the Democrats were in power for the eight years of the continuation of Bush Sr.'s policy of No-Fly Zones, targeted strikes, inspections, and sanctions in Iraq. This policy was successful - disarming Iraq and keeping their neighbors safe from Iraqi threats. Iraq was not a participator in international terrorism, and certainly not against the USA.

The Bush administration effectively abandoned the effort to fight terrorism, and instead fought a war of choice and opportunity in Iraq, and in the process lied repeatedly about the basis for doing so. They ignored warnings that the information they used was faulty, and there is considerable evidence they cooked the information deliberately. We know, for example that Cheney continued to spout information he'd been informed was discredited. It seems every "mistake" they made was in their favor.

It also appears that they badly miscalculated virtually every administrative aspect of the war, from reconstruction costs, to the response of Iraqis, to having a basic exit strategy. Meanwhile, Halliburton gets tons of no-bid contracts, and suddenly billions of dollars are missing. Oh, and tens of thousands of people are dead.

And the net result is that we're in a Vietnam-style quagmire in Iraq, there is a popular insurgency, and even the CIA admits there are far more terrorists now then when we began. The whole effort has been counter-productive in fighting terrorism.

What I personally would suggest is to orchestrate pulling out of Iraq with a UN peacekeeping mission there. Getting the US out is the first step towards a solution in Iraq. WE are the cause of the trouble there. Second, I would redouble the efforts to secure and rebuild Afghanistan. The Taliban is back in control of many sections of that country, and they really are dangerous people. Further, I'd purge the intelligence agencies of the administration stooges and industry shills, and try to get real, unbiased information and intelligence to work with.

It's pretty clear that the present strategy has not worked. We did not plan for the insurgency. We did not plan for adequate reconstruction. We didn't expect to lose so many American soldiers. And we sure didn't plan to make ourselves hated in the middle east, or to alienate our traditional allies and make the US hated worldwide. It will take decades to undo the damage this administration has done to both the world and our own credibility.

Capslock
 
  • #182
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Lauderdale @ Nov. 07 2005,9:50)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I haven't heard of any French troop deployments to any war zones.
 They are deployed in the streets of Paris trying to put down eleven days of rioting by ethnic minorities.  Over one thousand cars were burned last night alone.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly, just for themselves, big deal they have to put a riot down, we've been fighting a war and loosing THOUSANDS of American lives.
 
  • #183
There are 600 French troops currently in Afghanistan, including 200 French special forces troops fighting alongside American commandos.

They are deployed with NATO forces in many places in the world like the Congo. There are also French forces in the Ivory Coast helping the government quell rebels.

Capslock
 
  • #184
France has never fully de-colonized Africa, so French troops in Africa are like US troops in many places. Self-serving.
 
  • #185
Caps That makes no sense! Where is your "valid reasoning"? The "other side" has it, Where is yours. I must have dropped mine somewhere, because I thought I HAD used it. Oh, well. Maybe my valid reasoning is broken and I should send it in for its 40,000 mile check up. Funny what some think is or is not valid reasoning.
 
  • #186
Oho boy here we go. and i thought the era of big debates was over.

Thankyou for the offer, O71. however, i reject your logic and substitute it with my own
smile_n_32.gif


As we know no one pool of thought holds all the answers, and we defiatly have two pools of thought on how things should be done.

As for iraq,im not a politician. i doesnt matter why were there: were there and we should finish the job, because we know who will take control of the country if we leave now, and we will be even more unsafe, far more so than when sadam was in control (for the record, i dont think he was a threat)

so heres the dillema: if we pull out now, all the soildiers that have died thus far would have died for nothing. But to make that something, more must die. Heirin lays a contradiction: have more killed to vailidate the killed?

I dont know...

But i think its fair to say much of this generation is unaccostomed to war and death. this is not nearly the scale of many past conflicts. But that doesnt make it ok. Does it?
 
  • #187
Women need the presidency like a fish needs a bicycle. sorry, old joke.

Capslock..how dare you throw the truth at republicans! It makes them get all vicious and stuff.
smile_m_32.gif
 
  • #188
Its the Valid Reasoning, April. Blinds them. The truth can do that.
 
  • #189
I hate the seperation of the childish political parties...
Hillary Clinton will kill us all!
mad.gif
 
  • #190
I don't have the time to reply to everything right now, I need to get some sleep.

However I still notice the lack of maturity from here. All I asked was for you to share your view and why you believe it and what makes it valid to you. We have already gotten past first base and understand that you hate republicans and don't agree with what I suggested and argued.

I never assumed anything or stated that my view is the only view to have and it is the only view that is right. All I said was that I was one of the only people who clearly formed a valid argument and could actually debate something that could hold water. Calling someone blind, a sheep, misinformed or a republican is not debating.

So once again in plain english: I honestly want to see where you are coming from, and why. I could careless if u agree or disagree with my arguments, I care about your reasoning and your perspective. So if you are just going to reply with more mockery and immaturity don't bother replying at all.
smile_l_32.gif
 
  • #191
Whatever, Mr. Valid. G'nite.
 
  • #192
Ahh I see another intelligent response from the 'independant' POV. I think O71 has proved his point.
 
  • #193
And we are discussing what exactly? The woman as president thing was abandoned a while back and I have no idea what point's been proved in the last few posts.
 
  • #194
Don't worry about it. Points were somehow proved, but as usual, no points were made of any consequence from anyone but Caps. I am enjoying the show though. Been fun.
 
  • #195
>>>Not true at all.  Ever hear of the Rwanda genocide?  Look it up on google.com.  Clinton sat by and let the Hutu's butcher the Tutsis.  Almost a million people were killed.  That was just one event of Clinton's term<<<<<

I don't think it's our job to be the world's police force. If you haven't noticed...there are problems here in the US that need to be attended to. We have some mighty poor people here. I refuse to believe it's entirely their fault that they're poor.

Actually, Clinton, along with the whole rest of the world, sat on their thumbs and rotated while that Hutu/Tutsi debacle went on. I remember watching the McNeil/Lehrer newshour on PBS and watching film of people hacking people to death with machetes. So, I'll give you a 1/4 point on that one. Clinton, with US troops, DID help stop the genocide of Muslims in Bosnia, however. And we didn't lose one American Soldier doing it.

Also, vis a vis Saddam..do you remember that right after the first Gulf War we told the Kurds to stand up to Saddam, and we would support their efforts? They did and we didn't...hence the mass graves, the no fly zones, etc.
 
  • #196
Clinton, during his time in office, set us up for ruin. His wife, would destroy us all if she ever became president.
 
  • #197
And by the way, Clinton was not "our first black president"
mad.gif
. I'm tired of my people making lite of the crap he's done. Shear ignorance. While I can't bring up the many security issues he was invloved with, due to poor memory, so I'll post later when I remember!
biggrin.gif
 
  • #198
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Capslock @ Nov. 07 2005,2:26)]Let me remind you that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were not Iraqi. Nor did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11, despite the best lies of our Dear Leader. In fact, our efforts to track down and capture those responsible for the terrorism we faced on both 9/11 and the previous World Trade Center attack led to Afghanistan, and then back to Saudi Arabia, where the ideological basis for radical Islam begins. Most liberals and Democrats were unanimously in favor of the toppling of the Taliban, who harbored and supported Al Qaeda.

Further, the liberals and the Democrats were in power for the eight years of the continuation of Bush Sr.'s policy of No-Fly Zones, targeted strikes, inspections, and sanctions in Iraq. This policy was successful - disarming Iraq and keeping their neighbors safe from Iraqi threats. Iraq was not a participator in international terrorism, and certainly not against the USA.

The Bush administration effectively abandoned the effort to fight terrorism, and instead fought a war of choice and opportunity in Iraq, and in the process lied repeatedly about the basis for doing so. They ignored warnings that the information they used was faulty, and there is considerable evidence they cooked the information deliberately. We know, for example that Cheney continued to spout information he'd been informed was discredited. It seems every "mistake" they made was in their favor.

It also appears that they badly miscalculated virtually every administrative aspect of the war, from reconstruction costs, to the response of Iraqis, to having a basic exit strategy. Meanwhile, Halliburton gets tons of no-bid contracts, and suddenly billions of dollars are missing. Oh, and tens of thousands of people are dead.

And the net result is that we're in a Vietnam-style quagmire in Iraq, there is a popular insurgency, and even the CIA admits there are far more terrorists now then when we began. The whole effort has been counter-productive in fighting terrorism.

What I personally would suggest is to orchestrate pulling out of Iraq with a UN peacekeeping mission there. Getting the US out is the first step towards a solution in Iraq. WE are the cause of the trouble there. Second, I would redouble the efforts to secure and rebuild Afghanistan. The Taliban is back in control of many sections of that country, and they really are dangerous people. Further, I'd purge the intelligence agencies of the administration stooges and industry shills, and try to get real, unbiased information and intelligence to work with.

It's pretty clear that the present strategy has not worked. We did not plan for the insurgency. We did not plan for adequate reconstruction. We didn't expect to lose so many American soldiers. And we sure didn't plan to make ourselves hated in the middle east, or to alienate our traditional allies and make the US hated worldwide. It will take decades to undo the damage this administration has done to both the world and our own credibility.

Capslock
Wow I'm was glad to see a different POV w/o mudslinging. And most of your facts I find to be true but I decipher these facts in a different manner.

Your first paragraph you state that the Iraqis were not the people who attacked us on 9/11 which of course is true. But what is not understood most of the time is that we are not fighting the 'Iraqis' in essence. We are fighting insurgants in Iraq, but they are from all surronding areas, and some of these insurgants are indeed tied back to the Taliban. Granted the removal of Saddam had nothing to do with the Taliban or the attacks on 9/11 I find it to be an added plus (if there are any in war).

Your second paragraph you state that Iraq was not a participator in international terrorism. There might not have ever been a terrorist attack carried out by 'Iraqi Terrorist' but we do know that the Taliban recruited and trained in Iraq. To think that the Iraq goverment at the time did not know this was going on is crazy. Knowing a criminal entity is training and recruiting in your country and allowing it to happen is just as bad as carrying out the strike yourself. Also you state that the policies in that were in place for the eight years the democrats were in office were successful. Now Bush took office early '01 and we were attacked nine months later. We know that the planning involved for this attack too many years. If more aggressive steps were taken to twart the terrorists maybe they would not have time to plan if they have to run to stay alive, which is what is currently happening.

Your third paragraph states that the Bush administration lied repeatedly about the basis for going to war with Iraq. I belive the reason givin was immenant danger from WMD's. Granted we did not find any (even though we know at one time he had them) and us not finding any is a big problem and a large mistake for the administation, but to state they lied about it I find to be false. Bush acted on information givin to him by people he trusted, everyone (Democrats, Rebuplicans, even France) belived he had them. If you are able to find a report that can state he knew they did not have WMD's and stated they did anyways I would be extremely interested in reading it. But if there were such evidence he would be impeached.

I unfortunatly have to agree with your fourth paragraph. Other then deaths are expected in war.

Fifth paragraph states the costantly stated Veitnam-Iraq comparison. There is one basic difference in the two. In Veitnam we were sent in with our hands tied, this war we are actually allowed to fight as if we were in a war. I really dont think it is fair to say the war has been counter productive, we have not been attacked again on our soil since the beginning of the war. You know they would love to hit us again, and the lack of attacks alone have to be seen as productive.


I like your idea in your sixth paragraph, except that the UN needs massive reconstruction work. The UN right now is incapable of solving any problem that requires more then a signature.

In your last paragraph you say we did not expect to lose so many American Soldiers. I dont know who 'we' is or what number was expected to be lost, but once again it is war, men and women die. An estimated 70% of all the soldiers in Iraq at the moment signed up after 9/11, I think they new exactly what they were signing up to do. And I promise you, the good people in Iraq love us being there, the only ones that hate us are the ones that want to kill us while we sleep.

I just wanted to point out that it is possible to take the same exact data and have different ways in which to read it, and to do it without a denigrating and sarcastic responce.

Wolf
 
  • #199
<<<<My problem and wolf's problem is that people like yourselves cannot form a valid argument. You say we were taught this, that we spew Bush's propaganda and every other thing. The fact of the matter is we have given arguments and have backed them up with valid reasoning.>>

I have said no such thing, and hopefully you are now done putting words in my mouth, and thoughts in my head. What are “people like yourselves?” People who want the truth? As far as I'm concerned, neo-cons are the progenitors of hate war. Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Imus, et. al.

I’ll back my arguments up with quotes from your beloveds…how about that!

Bush's approval ratings are at Nixonian lows. I'm enjoying the heck out of them, the media and the American people are FINALLY starting to wake up.

Ok. How 'bout some facts, then, re: the war in Iraq.

At first, it was all about regime change in Iraq. Bush's neo-con inner circle (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Card, Libby) in the administration had been planning it BEFORE the Shrub was elected.

http://www.realcities.com/mld....512.htm

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/cabinetofficetext.html

Then it was about WMD.

Then, Rumsfeld told us they knew exactly where the WMD were…between Baghdad and Tikrit.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/06/rumsfeld_vs_rum.html

Then, after we toppled Saddam’s regime…Rummy didn’t think the looting and lawlessness were such a big deal. Quote:

>>."Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things," Rumsfeld said. "They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what's going to happen here."
Looting, he added, was not uncommon for countries that experience significant social upheaval. "Stuff happens," Rumsfeld said.<<

Well, except that that attitude led to the present chaos. No water, intermittent electricity, IED’s, suicide bombers, etc. So, I guess if I wanted to go looting right now…that would be okay, because in a free society, “stuff happens?” There’s some really cool stuff at the Field Museum I wouldn’t mind having at my house……

The war in Iraq was well researched, since it had been planned for, for such a long time, and the preparations for the aftermath of the toppling of Hussein were well formed…except…the administration chose to ignore them.

http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd76/76dc.htm

And then, there are the statements by both Bush and Rumsfeld that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Even though 72% of the “true believers” believe Iraq did. Can you say DUH!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm


What else do you people need?
 
  • #200
From what I have been reading, concerning the original report of WMD's in Iraq, it was not credible and the administration knew it - before they started the war. This is my opinion, Mr. Bush Jr was finishing the job that Mr. Bush Sr couldn't. It comes across as a venedetta. Virtually no one wil argue that Saddam Hussein is akin to a Hitler, but our approach to ridding of him, and the reasons why that we were told, have pretty lame. We should have let the UN, and their inspectors do their thing to completion and have the UN deal with Hussein, Iraq, and WMD's. Not that I think that the UN would have found anything our have the Chutzpah to do anything about it, but it would have been far less damaging to our already lousy credibility as Americans. Perhaps we have a message, but we certainly weren't the messenger.

BTW, why not LauraZ5 for Prez?
 
Back
Top