 |
|
Drachasor
|
|
oops, double-post.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giancarlo
This is bloated rhetoric that really doesn't mean much. He voted against a bill that was meant to give our troops more equipment and the bill was very good. Yet again, you are very wrong on this subject. |
http://www.democraticwings.com/demo...nomy/000208.php
And bear in mind that Bush slashed taxes extraordinarily and then constantly proposes way to spend a ton of new money in new places without any hint of where this money iis going to come from.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS...bush.iraq.reut/
That's CNN, and in case you forgot, the Bill was originally designed to help reconstruct Iraq..well, less than 20 billion was actually set aside to rebuild Iraq, and even today there are many places there without clean water or electricity, and children are becoming sick and dying at a higher rate than before the war.
I'd also note that those troops were sent in without body armor *before* this bill even came up, and that Bush was perfectly fine sending in troops unarmored, when he should have been making sure that they were prepared.
Also, given that Iraq has one of the most richest oil reserves on the planet, you'd think they could repay some of that less than 20 billion that was used to help rebuild the country; they should easily be able to afford it over time. Bush threatened to veto any attempt to find some way to pay for any part of the bill, however:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS...bush.iraq.reut/
quote:
Originally posted by Giancarlo WRONG AGAIN. Saddam was very much a threat. It was known that he was planning terrorist attacks against the United States, according to Russian intelligence sources. Saddam was always a threat when he held power. The Bush adminstration didn't put force on the intelligence agencies (again you made another deluded statement based on nothing but lies). Saddam had weapons to supply terrorists, in fact plenty of them. He was not contained because he was still murdering his people. |
I'd like to see *your* data for this. Saddam had no WMD and was not in the process of making any. Yes, he had plans on how to make them, but all the programs had been shut down. We've gone in there and found NOTHING, and we even had data indicating that most of the weapons he had before the Gulf War would be useless by now, and he couldn't have been making more in decent quantities. It seems he actually destroyed everything he had long before we went in.
Additionally, we only have the Russians word about any planning of terrorist attacks, and they have a clear motive for lying; they want us to support their extreme measures against anyone they label as a terrorist (which often includes an entire people).
If Saddam is funding terrorism (and he was), then that is easy to handle. You make sure he can't ship money out of the country and you clip some bank accounts; you needn't go to war.
quote:
Originally posted by Giancarlo
Nope. If we let the inspectors continue their work, Saddam would continue taking them on cat and mouse games. You are wrong again. Bush wanted a non-war solution. It was you peaceniks who didn't realize that this showdown was eventually going to happen. The inspectors knew they were being fooled with. |
All they had to do was help the inspectors. Do you seriously think that with Sat photos we couldn't help guide the inspectors to those trucks moving around? If you have that, and they inspect all of the buildings and find nothing, and then inspect every reasonable place Saddam might have hidden said weapons, then you have pretty much confirmed Saddam had NO WMD. This would have taken time, and Bush wasn't interested in actually looking into it. He wanted a war, and so he got a war. It wasn't necessary in the least. If there weren't enough inspectors to do this, then put more in.
The Bush team never really tried to work with the inspectors, and that is the simple truth; they just wanted it over with so they could move into Iraq. I repeat again: the inspectors were begging for more time to finish the job.
quote:
Originally posted by Giancarlo
Bush was not rude to our allies, because we had the biggest coalition go into Iraq with us. The number of non-american trops in Iraq is pitifully small? THERE YOU GO AGAIN INSULTING OUR ALLIES. The number of non-american troops is constrained by the fact that America is the only nation that can project significant portions of its military in the world. |
I am not insulting our allies, I am insulting the size of our coalition, and there is a monumental difference. I respect all the troops in Iraq, and I wish them well. That doesn't change the fact our coalition is a small one or that our plan in Iraq is a poor one. To analyze the coalition and plan and find them lacking is not insulting our allies.
If anything, you are insulting our allies by proposing they can't defend themselves. If Poland can defend themselves there, then I am sure many, many other countries can manage as well. The number of non-american troops is constrained by the EGO of the Bush administration, which belittled our allies, constantly insults them, and tells them that it doesn't matter what they think because Bush will do whatever he wants anyway. When they wanted more time for the invesitigations, and the investigators werent done, and Saddam clearly wasn't an imminent threat, but Bush brushes all that aside and goes in, then that is insulting and dismissive. That's Team Bush for you though, they always do things like that.
No other President would so quickly erode and destroy the good will and support behind us that came after 9/11. They were behind us in Afghanistan 100%, and look how quickly Bush was able to turn that around.
quote:
Originally posted by Giancarlo
This is of course inflated left wing rhetoric that is not looking at the facts. We very much had a plan. If not, then why is their an interim government in Iraq? We practically predicted there was going to be upheaval in Iraq after the war. We knew that. And the amount of troops in Iraq is adequate. Bush had a plan and is carrying it out. Rather John Kerry is the one without a plan. You on the other side don't ever propose a plan. Your plan is to pull out and cause the death of millions. But I guess a civil war is something you want. The disbanding of the Iraqi military was a mistake and I will grant you that. |
Oh, we had the vague outlines of a plan, sure. One that involved getting the Iraqi military to help us keep the peace. First thing in though, we tell them all to go home. It was also a plan that had no contingencies in it, and generally wasn't thought out in depth. Interim government in Iraq? That wasn't seriously thought about until after the occupation was well under way; the fact that it took over a year before there was an interim government is evidence of this.
You clearly don't listen to people on the other side, because no one reasonable is saying to pull out. Kerry has consistently said we CAN'T pull out, we must succeed now. We have no choices anymore in this. Kerry has merely said that if we get help from our allies with the addition of more troops, then we can pull SOME of our troops out. This only makes sense. It is in the debate, maybe you should read the transcript.
quote:
Originally posted by Giancarlo
You don't understand what you are doing. The Bush team is very competent in the conducting of affairs. You again are wrong. This war has cost very few casualities (over 1,000 KIA is an inaccurate state, as most of those were killed in accidents and accidents happen in war). The main flaw of the opposition here is in the inability to rationalize and propose a different plan. You are wrong and you know it. So is John Kerry. You don't even present an alternative plan. |
Everyone of any sense knew that going into Iraq was going to be easy, but the situation there now is uncontrolled. Troop deaths are not slowing down (FYI, causalties refers to any injury, we have over 1000 fatalities which refers to deaths). While military causalties are fairly high in peace-time, military fatalities are not.
http://icasualties.org/oif/
See, not slowing down? Heck, we already have two deaths this month, and it is only the 2nd! It is a mess there and not getting better.
Just look at this:
Fatality Data
Fatalities are easily 5-10 times higher than they are in peacetime. That's a simple fact.
The Pentagon has numbers on how many peacekeeping forces should be involved in a situation like Iraq, and we simply don't have those numbers:
Item 1
Item 2
The administration thought we'd be treated as liberators, they said it would cost at most 100 billion dollars, they dismissed trained and experienced military leaders that disagreed with them. If you don't like to call it "incompetence" then you can call it "arrogance," because ignoring trained experts in a matter you know little about IS arrogance (it's also stupid).
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giancarlo
That is very much your opinion. This is war and things happen in war. You still have yet to present an alternative plan. I don't have anything else to say. I've said all that could be. If I tried responding to that (CNN and pro-Kerry corroborated garbage), I'll simply be redundant. You have my answer. |
Oh, I see, you can't respond so you just trash me and say that CNN is garbage? Right. Considering you barely had any time to read what I said given the date on your post, I have to doubt your desire to be intellectually honest here.
And I did outline a plan, in fact I outlined what Kerry said we should have done.
1. Let the Weapon Inspectors do their job (this likely would have stopped the War altogether, as proper support with intelligence data and SAT photos would have revealed Saddam had not WMDs).
2. Work with other nations closely, understand their concerns, pay respect to their concerns, and work on getting them to be part of a large coalition. There is no way in heck most of the nations can go into Iraq *WITH BUSH* when he paid little heed to the weapons inspectors. Kerry has a good chance of getting them to rethink their position, since they'd no longer have to be seen as agreeing with Bush and Bush policies.
3. Make sure you have enough troops to make the populace feel safe, as per Pentagon experience in the matter. This can be done with the above Coalition.
4. Make sure everyone understands you tried to do everything else you could before you went in.
5. Make sure you put enough money into rebuilding the infracture of Iraq, make sure you have enough troops in there to keep the peace, so people CAN rebuild the country. Right now it is largely too dangerous because we don't have enough troops to even allow our troops to walk around safely most of the time.
Really, the biggest think hurting the effectiveness of the occupation is the number of troops, and Bush has backed himself into a corner where he can't get any foreign help, and it would be hard to get domestic help here. Hence Iraq isn't going to get better anytime soon (and 90% of those 100,000 Iraqis that have been trained have only had 3-week courses, and the US soldiers there say we need a lot more resources devoted to training the Iraqis).
Is that clear enough for you? I tried to have the better way pretty well indicated in what I wrote before, but apparently that didn't work as well as I thought.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
In my opinion Kerry came off as calmer and better able to present a rational argument. In this debate he blew away claims that he was a "flip-flopper". Bush seemed to be more emotional and to almost be grasping at straws. At the end he seemed to be conceding to Kerry.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Docfeelgood
|
 |
Homeless in Texas.
Aug 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
We practically predicted there was going to be upheaval in Iraq after the war. We knew that. And the amount of troops in Iraq is adequate. Bush had a plan and is carrying it out. |
I predict now that there will have to be a draft to just TRY to finish the job in Iraq.
The only plan Bush had was getting into Iraq no matter the cost. He gave no thought to the plan of getting out.
Last edited by Docfeelgood on 03-10-2004 at 20:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Docfeelgood
|
|
Homeless in Texas.
Aug 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
First, I don't like Bush.
I have had to put up with his BS longer than most of you because I live in Texas.
It pains me to see most of yall have been deceived by the Bush administration.
quote:
Bush wanted a non-war solution |
Son, pro-Bush spindoctors have been leading you into the wrong direction.
You appear to me to be a smart young man. Now I know you can make up your own mind without having to listen to them.
I personally predicted way back when he first stole the election that it was just a matter of time before he looked for an excuse to go after Sodam Insane.
I was not wrong.
There are far more dangerous places in the world to have attacked first before Iraq.
Now, ya gotta ask yourself this question. Should we have not first finished the job of occupation in Afghanistan before starting a second occupation in Iraq?
What was the hurry to rush to war in Iraq?
Doc
Last edited by Docfeelgood on 03-10-2004 at 20:33
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-10-2004 01:05
|