PDA

View Full Version : Senate Votes "No" on pulling some troops


Mr. Laz
06-23-2006, 10:13 AM
Democrats want change in Iraq, GOP backs BushLIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Democrats want a different direction in Iraq. Republicans back President Bush.

"The public is very happy about the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11," Sen. Mitch McConnell, the second-ranking Senate Republican, said, even though polls show voters are weary about the war that's in its fourth year.

"Americans want an exit strategy," countered Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. "The status quo is a disaster."

The GOP-controlled Senate was poised to vote Thursday on two Democratic proposals to start redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq this year, a week after both houses of Congress soundly rejected withdrawal timetables.

Both proposals - offered as amendments to an annual military bill - were expected to be defeated, mostly along partisan lines.

"One hundred percent of the Democratic caucus believes it's time for change. One hundred percent of the Republican caucus believes it's time to stay the course," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said during debate, voicing the Democratic view of the likely vote outcome as well as the choice facing voters this fall.

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., laid out the stark differences according to Republicans, saying Democrats offer "a vacillating strategic plan for retreat" while the GOP supports "a steady strategic plan for success."

To counter criticism that no weapons of mass destruction turned up in Iraq even though that was a key argument for going to war, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., released a newly declassified military intelligence report. It said that coalition forces had found 500 munitions in Iraq that contained degraded sarin or mustard nerve agents, produced before the 1991 Gulf War.

Democrats downplayed the intelligence report, saying that a lengthy 2005 report from the top U.S. weapons inspector contemplated that such munitions would be found. A defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age.

Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have staged bitter partisan debates for two weeks, with both sides maneuvering for the political upper-hand in a midterm election year.

On Wednesday, Senate Republicans welcomed the Democratic-engineered debate because it highlighted divisions in the Democratic Party little more than four months before Election Day and as the GOP is trying to overcome polls showing the public favors a power shift in Congress to Democrats.

Democrats, for their part, tried to deflect attention from differences in their party on Iraq, even though the debate was over two separate Democratic proposals on the fate of U.S. troops.

One of those proposals, sponsored by Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, would require the administration to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007, with redeployments beginning this year.

The other proposal - which most Democrats and their leadership supports - calls for the administration to begin "a phased redeployment of U.S. forces" by year's end. The nonbinding resolution would not set a deadline of when all forces must be withdrawn.

The Bush administration says U.S. troops will stay in Iraq until Iraqi security forces can defend the country against a lethal insurgency that rose up after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 that toppled dictator Saddam Hussein.

Senate Republicans opposed any timeline. They said a premature pullout and a public pronouncement of any such plan would risk all-out civil war, tip off terrorists, threaten U.S. security and cripple the Iraqi government just as democracy is taking hold.

In turn, almost all Democrats chastised Republicans for walking in lockstep with Bush and they accused him of failing to articulate a plan for the way ahead in Iraq. Democrats said it is time for troops to start coming home and for Congress to send a clear signal that the U.S. presence is not indefinite.

Sensitive to talk of a divided party, Democratic aides circulated a memo from a Democratic pollster suggesting that Republicans are going to pay a price in November for standing with the president's war policies. But Republicans dismissed that notion.

Democrats also played down concerns, voiced privately by some party strategists, that the Kerry-Feingold call for a "hard-and-fast" deadline is hindering the party's efforts to project a unified position on Iraq for the fall.

Still, those dismissals did not explain why Democratic leaders spent more than a week trying to write a "consensus" proposal that they hoped would persuade Kerry and Feingold to drop their own, which would set a "date certain" for ending the U.S. combat mission.

In the end, the two potential 2008 Democratic presidential candidates were not swayed and votes on the separate proposals were scheduled.

recxjake
06-23-2006, 10:18 AM
Democrats don't have a clue

StcChief
06-23-2006, 10:29 AM
You could give all the dems a quarter each to buy a clue and they couldn't do it.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2006, 10:42 AM
"The public is very happy about the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11,"

That may be the only thing our government and the citizens they represent agree on.

I've never seen a government this out of touch with America - both parties at fault.

Cochise
06-23-2006, 10:46 AM
I notice that nowhere does this article mention the Senate vote on troop withdrawal was 93-6.

If this is what the people want then why does no one have the sack to vote for it?

jAZ
06-23-2006, 11:00 AM
Democrats are the only ones willing to openly debate alternatives to the massive incompetence that results in being in Iraq for 4 years.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 11:01 AM
I notice that nowhere does this article mention the Senate vote on troop withdrawal was 93-6.

If this is what the people want then why does no one have the sack to vote for it?
There were 2 votes.... one with a firm timeline got 6 votes... the other without a firm deadline got something like 40 votes.

recxjake
06-23-2006, 11:02 AM
Democrats are the only ones willing to openly debate alternatives to the massive incompetence that results in being in Iraq for 4 years.

an alternative is not retreating before the job is finished.....

recxjake
06-23-2006, 11:04 AM
There were 2 votes.... one with a firm timeline got 6 votes... the other without a firm deadline got something like 40 votes.

why would they need to vote on a withdrawl without a timetable.... it's called the original plan!

Donger
06-23-2006, 11:04 AM
There were 2 votes.... one with a firm timeline got 6 votes... the other without a firm deadline got something like 40 votes.

I'll admit that I'm not familiar with these votes. Did the vote with the firm deadline have certain milestones, or was it just a date?

recxjake
06-23-2006, 11:06 AM
I'll admit that I'm not familiar with these votes. Did the vote with the firm deadline have certain milestones, or was it just a date?

it was a political stunt.... that got shot down

HC_Chief
06-23-2006, 11:10 AM
Democrats are the only ones willing to openly debate alternatives to the massive incompetence that results in being in Iraq for 4 years.

So killing terrorists, removing a genocidal dictator, building schools and infrastructure, and helping Iraq implement a democratic form of government = massive incompetence?

And you wonder why people ask why you hate the military?

Your rhetoric is ascerbic and ignorant, at best. Not unlike your soure: DU.

recxjake
06-23-2006, 11:12 AM
So killing terrorists, removing a genocidal dictator, building schools and infrastructure, and helping Iraq implement a democratic form of government = massive incompetence?

And you wonder why people ask why you hate the military?

Your rhetoric is ascerbic and ignorant, at best. Not unlike your soure: DU.

well said.

Mr. Laz
06-23-2006, 11:14 AM
an alternative is not retreating before the job is finished.....
so when is the job going to be finished?


what parameters will indicate "finished" for you

Cochise
06-23-2006, 11:18 AM
so when is the job going to be finished?


what parameters will indicate "finished" for you

I would say when Iraq's government is capable of maintaining a reasonable level of peace and order on its own.

Mr. Laz
06-23-2006, 11:20 AM
I would say when Iraq's government is capable of maintaining a reasonable level of peace and order on its own.
like korea?


i know that sounds flippant ... but it cuts to the heart of the matter.


does nation building EVER end?


doesn't a country basically commit themselves permanently whenever they start nation building?

jAZ
06-23-2006, 11:21 AM
So killing terrorists, removing a genocidal dictator, building schools and infrastructure, and helping Iraq implement a democratic form of government = massive incompetence?
You should learn a little more about what happened in the 9 months between the fall of Saddam and the beginning of the insurgency starting with Al Sadr. We didn't do shit during that time to "building schools and infrastructure" because Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld failed put in place enough troops to actually do anything. It was a case of MASSIVE INCOMPETENCE on behalf of the political leaders who ignored the military soldiers.
And you wonder why people ask why you hate the military?
Because you are willfully ignorant of the facts and wish to spin criticism of appointed/elected political leaders into faux criticism of the military purely to try and score political defelection points at the expense of the reputation of the boots on the groud?

Cochise
06-23-2006, 11:23 AM
like korea?


i know that sounds flippant ... but it cuts to the heart of the matter.


does nation building EVER end?


doesn't a country basically commit themselves permanently whenever they start nation building?

It ended in Germany and Japan.

I don't think it would necessarily be negative for us to have military installations there on a permanent basis like we do in those two nations. They would not be a bad model at all for this reconstruction, IMO.

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2006, 11:29 AM
like korea?


i know that sounds flippant ... but it cuts to the heart of the matter.


does nation building EVER end?


doesn't a country basically commit themselves permanently whenever they start nation building?


We will probably never fully leave. We now have the strategic fuel source we need in the event of a major problem on the European continent. Keep your eye on the ball Laz.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 11:33 AM
I'll admit that I'm not familiar with these votes. Did the vote with the firm deadline have certain milestones, or was it just a date?
Here's the scoop...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003079936_iraqsenate23.html

Senate rejects troop-withdrawal measures
By Maura Reynolds

Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — The Republican-controlled Senate rejected two Democratic measures Thursday calling for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, votes that were less an attempt to legislate than a test of Democratic unity on an issue that could prove decisive in November's congressional elections and the 2008 presidential race.

An overwhelming majority of the chamber's Democrats — including Washington Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell — backed a resolution that urged President Bush to start the troop redeployment by the end of this year but stopped short of setting a deadline for complete withdrawal.

Some Democratic leaders hailed the support for the proposal, which was designed to signal to Iraqis that they need to assume more control of their country, as an expression of party cohesion.

"When you get 80 percent of the Democrats agreeing on the specifics of a policy, folks, you've got a strong consensus of Democrats," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee and one of the resolution's sponsors.

The measure lost, 60-39, but Levin and his co-sponsor, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., noted that all but six of the Senate's Democrats voted for it, as did one Republican.

"I think the message that we are sending here is that we want us to succeed in Iraq, but ... the time of a blank check [for the administration's policies] must come to an end," said Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo.

The second withdrawal measure, sponsored by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., would have required the administration to immediately begin withdrawal and complete it by July of next year. It was soundly defeated, 86-13, with 31 Democrats — including Murray and Cantwell — joining 55 Republicans in voting against it.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 11:34 AM
I don't think it would necessarily be negative for us to have military installations there on a permanent basis like we do in those two nations.
I believe that's been the plan from day 1. Which is part of the reason that 6 months ago, Bush said explicitly he won't be removing troops from Iraq and such a choice will be left up to the next President.

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2006, 11:35 AM
The second withdrawal measure, sponsored by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., would have required the administration to immediately begin withdrawal and complete it by July of next year. It was soundly defeated, 86-13, with 31 Democrats — including Murray and Cantwell — joining 55 Republicans in voting against it.

And that is why John Kerry will never be president.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 11:36 AM
why would they need to vote on a withdrawl without a timetable.... it's called the original plan!
Pay attention before you run your mouth. Seriously, I'm not spoon feeding your ignorance.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 11:38 AM
And that is why John Kerry will never be president.
There is a legitimate arguement that can be made (and Kerry's proposal goes to the heart of)... the the Iraqi people won't ever be forced to take control of their own nation until we put a deadline in place. Just like with contract negoatiations in the NFL... nothing really happens until the night before training camp. The dead line can serve a psychological purspose.

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2006, 11:41 AM
There is a legitimate arguement that can be made (and Kerry's proposal goes to the heart of)... the the Iraqi people won't ever be forced to take control of their own nation until we put a deadline in place. Just like with contract negoatiations in the NFL... nothing really happens until the night before training camp. The dead line can serve a psychological purspose.

Are you assuming we really want to leave?

Chiefs Minor Satellite
06-23-2006, 11:42 AM
I've heard abundant opinion on not having an exit strategy.

Who says we don't have one? (rhetorical)

Why do they say that? (again rhetorical)

Does the administration have an exit strategy?

Could it be that we aren't exiting because the milestones that have been laid out have not been met?

Just asking to see what the consensus is.

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2006, 11:43 AM
I've heard abundant opinion on not having an exit strategy.

Who says we don't have one? (rhetorical)

Why do they say that? (again rhetorical)

Does the administration have an exit strategy?

Could it be that we aren't exiting because the milestones that have been laid out have not been met?

Just asking to see what the consensus is.

How many times do I have to say we don't ever want to fully leave?

jAZ
06-23-2006, 11:50 AM
Are you assuming we really want to leave?
If by "we" you mean the Bush Administration? Then no. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3275925&postcount=21).

If by "we" you mean Kerry, Feingold, many of the Dems in Congress and the vast majority of Americas? Then Yes.

banyon
06-23-2006, 11:52 AM
So killing terrorists, removing a genocidal dictator, building schools and infrastructure, and helping Iraq implement a democratic form of government = massive incompetence? .

Having trouble finding the incompetence, HC? No prob, there's plenty to go round...

1. Failing to build a real international coalition prior to the Iraq invasion, forcing the US to shoulder the full cost and consequences of the war.

2. Approving the demobilization of the Iraqi Army in May, 2003 – bypassing the Joint Chiefs of Staff and reversing an earlier position, the President left hundreds of thousands of armed Iraqis disgruntled and unemployed, contributing significantly to the massive security problems American troops have faced during occupation.

3. Not equipping troops in Iraq with adequate body armor or armored HUMVEES.

4. Ignoring the advice Gen. Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more troops in Iraq – now Bush is belatedly adding troops, having allowed the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Shinseki said it would if there were not enough troops.

5. Ignoring plans drawn up by the Army War College and other war-planning agencies, which predicted most of the worst security and infrastructure problems America faced in the early days of the Iraq occupation.

6. Making a case for war which ignored intelligence that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

7. Deriding "nation-building" during the 2000 debates, then engaging American troops in one of the most explicit instances of nation building in American history.

8. Predicting along with others in his administration that US troops would be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

9. Predicting Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.

10. Wildly underestimating the cost of the war.

11. Trusting Ahmed Chalabi, who has dismissed faulty intelligence he provided the President as necessary for getting the Americans to topple Saddam.

12. Disbanding the Sunni Baathist managers responsible for Iraq's water, electricity, sewer system and all the other critical parts of that country's infrastructure.

13. Failing to give UN weapons inspectors enough time to certify if weapons existed in Iraq.

14. Including discredited intelligence concerning Nigerian Yellow Cake in his 2003 State of the Union.

15. Announcing that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended" aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, below a "Mission Accomplished" banner – more U.S. soldiers have died in combat since Bush's announcement than before it.

16. Awarding a multi-billion dollar contract to Halliburton in Iraq, which then repeatedly overcharged the government and served troops dirty food.

17. Refusing to cede any control of Post-invasion Iraq to the international community, meaning reconstruction has received limited aid from European allies or the U.N.

18. Failing to convince NATO allies why invading Iraq was important.

19. Having no real plan for the occupation of Iraq.

20. Limiting bidding on Iraq construction projects to "coalition partners," unnecessarily alienating important allies France, Germany and Russia.

21. Diverting $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress.

22. Shutting down an Iraqi newspaper for "inciting violence" – the move, which led in short order to street fighting in Fallujah, incited more violence than the newspaper ever had.

23. Telling Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan about plans to go to war with Iraq before Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Radar Chief
06-23-2006, 11:53 AM
like korea?

Ok, what ‘bout Korea? I guess I wasn’t aware that they were have’n security issues that couldn’t be handled by their own gubment. Link? :shrug:

Donger
06-23-2006, 11:56 AM
"When you get 80 percent of the Democrats agreeing on the specifics of a policy, folks, you've got a strong consensus of Democrats," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee and one of the resolution's sponsors.

That's an interesting way of looking at the vote. I'd say that when you can't get close to 100% of your own party to vote on a resolution, then you've got some re-thinking to do.

Mr. Laz
06-23-2006, 11:57 AM
We will probably never fully leave. We now have the strategic fuel source we need in the event of a major problem on the European continent. Keep your eye on the ball Laz.
interesting

so this Iraq mess was all a master plan from the beginning to acquire a fuel source from the beginning?


it would explain all the BS excuses used to start the war

Mr. Laz
06-23-2006, 11:58 AM
Ok, what ‘bout Korea? I guess I wasn’t aware that they were have’n security issues that couldn’t be handled by their own gubment. Link? :shrug:
we are still there

jAZ
06-23-2006, 11:58 AM
That's an interesting way of looking at the vote. I'd say that when you can't get close to 100% of your own party to vote on a resolution, then you've got some re-thinking to do.
We are talking about Democrats here. Unity is not their thing.

morphius
06-23-2006, 12:05 PM
Anything that "urges" a President to do anything with no time tables is a political stunt and nothing more. If there wasn't an election coming up they wouldn''t have bothered.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 12:11 PM
Anything that "urges" a President to do anything with no time tables is a political stunt and nothing more. If there wasn't an election coming up they wouldn''t have bothered.
The only thing Congress can do beyond this is to take massive and sweeping changes than no one wants... like cutting the budget for the war (forcing the President's hand) or impeachment.

"Urging the President" is about the practical limits that our Democracy permits in this situation.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 12:12 PM
interesting

so this Iraq mess was all a master plan from the beginning to acquire a fuel source from the beginning?


it would explain all the BS excuses used to start the war
I've been told this war is not about oil.

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2006, 12:12 PM
If by "we" you mean the Bush Administration? Then no. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3275925&postcount=21).

If by "we" you mean Kerry, Feingold, many of the Dems in Congress and the vast majority of Americas? Then Yes.


The oligarchy of this country simply can't be honest about our real reasons for us being there as we have just become too wussified in the hermetically sealed enviroments our wealthy society has allowed us to provide for ourselves.

IMO this new culture will eventually lead to our downfall. The world they live in is idealistic and not realistic far removed from the reality that lies right outside that sealed environment.

It is also my opinion that this culture is the biggest threat to our country. Keep in mind I was never for invading Iraq. I thought we should have went another direction. I don't agree with it but I do understand it.

The reason I don't post much in this section anymore is because almost everything being debated over here is completely irrelevant to the real issues going on. Exit plan, there isn't one and there won't be until we feel we have a good control over this government and even then we will still have some of our people there. This was a big gamble but you don't walk away and leave all those chips on the table now. I honestly believe the Democrats would have us do exactly that to gain power and control. It doesnt matter what is best for our country or it's citizens. It's kind of like the dumb**** Dems we have out here who all agreed to try and bankrupt California so they could blame the Republican and they felt that would allow them to have much more power. THe only problem with that is the idiots didn't know the speaker was on outside of the room they were in in the state capital. There was zero interest in what was best for the people of California. IMO history is just repeating itself on a national level right now.

Donger
06-23-2006, 12:13 PM
The only thing Congress can do beyond this is to take massive and sweeping changes than no one wants... like cutting the budget for the war (forcing the President's hand) or impeachment.

"Urging the President" is about the practical limits that our Democracy permits in this situation.

Or, not to have voted to authorize force in the first place.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 12:14 PM
Or, not to have voted to authorize force in the first place.
Do you have a time machine? Cause I'd be willing to jump in and try to change history. That would have been my prefered course from the beginning.

Donger
06-23-2006, 12:15 PM
I've been told this war is not about oil.

Personally, I don't think that oil is the primary motivation. If it were, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia.

But, anyone that thinks we'd give a rat's ass about the ME if they didn't have huge reserves is kidding themselves.

And, is oil worth fighting over? Considering how dependent we presently are not only on oil, but foreign oil, I'd say yes.

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2006, 12:16 PM
interesting

so this Iraq mess was all a master plan from the beginning to acquire a fuel source from the beginning?


it would explain all the BS excuses used to start the war

Not just A fuel source. The most strategically placed large fuel source on the European continent which is extrememly important over the next 30 years from a military standpoint. Keep your eye on the ball.

Chiefs Minor Satellite
06-23-2006, 12:16 PM
How many times do I have to say we don't ever want to fully leave?

I don't know that I disagree, but we won't be there in the numbers that we are now.

Some say that we need to build a military installation there, I don't know if that is a good or a bad idea. We have or have had bases in worse places.

Donger
06-23-2006, 12:17 PM
Do you have a time machine? Cause I'd be willing to jump in and try to change history. That would have been my prefered course from the beginning.

Yes, but liberals can't figure out how to operate the darn thing.

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2006, 12:19 PM
Personally, I don't think that oil is the primary motivation. If it were, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia.

But, anyone that thinks we'd give a rat's ass about the ME if they didn't have huge reserves is kidding themselves.

And, is oil worth fighting over? Considering how dependent we presently are not only on oil, but foreign oil, I'd say yes.

How do you figure? The Saudi's already have a huge interest in seeing America succeed considering how much they have invested over here. Iraq on the other hand was a pain in the ass and we could actually validate a war there.

chagrin
06-23-2006, 12:19 PM
I don't know that I disagree, but we won't be there in the numbers that we are now.

Some say that we need to build a military installation there, I don't know if that is a good or a bad idea. We have or have had bases in worse places.

ROFL
Taco, is that you?
exactly wtf are you saying here?

Chiefs Minor Satellite
06-23-2006, 12:20 PM
Do you have a time machine? Cause I'd be willing to jump in and try to change history. That would have been my prefered course from the beginning.

Your comment reads like some with 20/20 hindsight.

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2006, 12:20 PM
I don't know that I disagree, but we won't be there in the numbers that we are now.

Some say that we need to build a military installation there, I don't know if that is a good or a bad idea. We have or have had bases in worse places.


I agree.

Chiefs Minor Satellite
06-23-2006, 12:21 PM
ROFL
Taco, is that you?
exactly wtf are you saying here?

Did you read what I was replying to?

What's a taco?

chagrin
06-23-2006, 12:26 PM
Did you read what I was replying to?

What's a taco?

Yes, I did - but nevermind - I was just having a little fun

Radar Chief
06-23-2006, 12:27 PM
Having trouble finding the incompetence, HC? No prob, there's plenty to go round...

1. Failing to build a real international coalition prior to the Iraq invasion, forcing the US to shoulder the full cost and consequences of the war.

You mean like the 49 nations in the “Coalition of the willing” that gave support for invasion?

2. Approving the demobilization of the Iraqi Army in May, 2003 – bypassing the Joint Chiefs of Staff and reversing an earlier position, the President left hundreds of thousands of armed Iraqis disgruntled and unemployed, contributing significantly to the massive security problems American troops have faced during occupation.

This we actually agree on.

3. Not equipping troops in Iraq with adequate body armor or armored HUMVEES.

HUMVEES aren’t meant to slug it out with the enemy. They survive by quickness, mobility. Armoring them has made them slower, less mobile, and they still can’t stand toe to toe with any other armored vehicle.
The terrorists found a soft spot, unarmored vehicles, and attacked them with their best weapon, IED’s. Armoring them after the fact is called “roll’n with the punches”.
Bitch’n ‘bout them not be’n armored before is armchair quarter back’n.

4. Ignoring the advice Gen. Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more troops in Iraq – now Bush is belatedly adding troops, having allowed the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Shinseki said it would if there were not enough troops.

Gen. Tommy Franks obviously had different ideas. Is it his fault for not do’n exactly what Shinseki wanted also?

5. Ignoring plans drawn up by the Army War College and other war-planning agencies, which predicted most of the worst security and infrastructure problems America faced in the early days of the Iraq occupation.

More armchair quarter back’n.


6. Making a case for war which ignored intelligence that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

You’re make’n this claim the day after a report stateing that we’ve found 500 chemical shells in Iraq.

9. Predicting Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.

Link?

10. Wildly underestimating the cost of the war.

Another we agree on.

11. Trusting Ahmed Chalabi, who has dismissed faulty intelligence he provided the President as necessary for getting the Americans to topple Saddam.

You say that as if “Curve ball” was the sole source for all intelligence.

12. Disbanding the Sunni Baathist managers responsible for Iraq's water, electricity, sewer system and all the other critical parts of that country's infrastructure.

Another we agree on.

13. Failing to give UN weapons inspectors enough time to certify if weapons existed in Iraq.

They had +11 years. How long would’ve been long enough?

14. Including discredited intelligence concerning Nigerian Yellow Cake in his 2003 State of the Union.

That same issue included more information than what you appear to be claim’n.

15. Announcing that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended" aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, below a "Mission Accomplished" banner – more U.S. soldiers have died in combat since Bush's announcement than before it.

Major combat operations were over in Iraq. Everything else since then has been considerably smaller and on a local scale.

16. Awarding a multi-billion dollar contract to Halliburton in Iraq, which then repeatedly overcharged the government and served troops dirty food.

And if they’d went through the typical bid process you’d have bitched that it was take’n so long.


17. Refusing to cede any control of Post-invasion Iraq to the international community, meaning reconstruction has received limited aid from European allies or the U.N.

You mean the same “international community” that didn’t want to help?

18. Failing to convince NATO allies why invading Iraq was important.

You mean like UK? Or like Italy? Spain?

19. Having no real plan for the occupation of Iraq.

Here you’re try’n to state opinion as fact.


20. Limiting bidding on Iraq construction projects to "coalition partners," unnecessarily alienating important allies France, Germany and Russia.

You mean the same countries that were help’n to keep Saddam in power? All three of those countries were sell’n military equipment to’im up to, and in some cases even after, invasion.
Don’t you think this would have as much to do with get’n the people of Iraq to trust us?

21. Diverting $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress.

Another we agree on.

22. Shutting down an Iraqi newspaper for "inciting violence" – the move, which led in short order to street fighting in Fallujah, incited more violence than the newspaper ever had.

Right, and that violence had absolutely nothing to do with what the “paper” had been print’n before it was shut down.

23. Telling Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan about plans to go to war with Iraq before Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Do you have a link to this with some information other than heresay?
Even then, why are you so concerned ‘bout the order in which information is disseminated?


There, even though we agree on several things, it should be quite obvious that for each point there’s an equally reasonable counter point.
Are you still so sure ‘bout your list?

JBucc
06-23-2006, 12:28 PM
What's a taco?This is a taco:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=2578&stc=1

Donger
06-23-2006, 12:29 PM
This is a taco:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=2578&stc=1

Is that GoChiefs?

jAZ
06-23-2006, 12:46 PM
Personally, I don't think that [terrorism] is the primary motivation. If it were, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia.
Fixed your post.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 12:47 PM
Yes, but liberals can't figure out how to operate the darn thing.
Republicans have it nailed down though... just lie and pretend that history was something different. Voila!

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2006, 12:48 PM
The oligarchy of this country simply can't be honest about our real reasons for us being there as we have just become too wussified in the hermetically sealed enviroments our wealthy society has allowed us to provide for ourselves.

IMO this new culture will eventually lead to our downfall. The world they live in is idealistic and not realistic far removed from the reality that lies right outside that sealed environment.

It is also my opinion that this culture is the biggest threat to our country. Keep in mind I was never for invading Iraq. I thought we should have went another direction. I don't agree with it but I do understand it.

The reason I don't post much in this section anymore is because almost everything being debated over here is completely irrelevant to the real issues going on. Exit plan, there isn't one and there won't be until we feel we have a good control over this government and even then we will still have some of our people there. This was a big gamble but you don't walk away and leave all those chips on the table now. I honestly believe the Democrats would have us do exactly that to gain power and control. It doesnt matter what is best for our country or it's citizens. It's kind of like the dumb**** Dems we have out here who all agreed to try and bankrupt California so they could blame the Republican and they felt that would allow them to have much more power. THe only problem with that is the idiots didn't know the speaker was on outside of the room they were in in the state capital. There was zero interest in what was best for the people of California. IMO history is just repeating itself on a national level right now.

One more thing. I fully believe Logical knows all of this which is why I have know idea why he posts what he has been lately. This meme smoochfest thing is just nauseating too. I still love the guy but his recent posting escapes me. The "why are still in Iraq" post was the icing on the cake. I said you know exactly why we are there why do you ask and got no response. He knows and fully understands and like me may not have agreed going in. To insinuate we should just pull out now though leaving all the chips on the table is just madness.

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 12:49 PM
I might be in the minority but I believe that the very fact that this issue was debated and voted on is a huge step forward and victory for those of us who want an end to this nonsense.

Think about it, not so long ago (last year) the very idea of putting this to a vote or questioning the POTUS and the war effort was deemed almost criminal and definitely unpatriotic. We now have more people seeing the futility of the war and though this vote didn't pass now it will pass sooner rather than later.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 12:49 PM
Your comment reads like some with 20/20 hindsight.
It's called 'foresight'. It's only 'hindsight' when your foresight was wrong.

Ask around... I've been saying the same exact thing for 4 years now. Since long before the war started.

Donger
06-23-2006, 01:00 PM
It's interesting how Iraq is now viewed as 'the war' by some and not just another theater of operations in the global war against terrorism.

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2006, 01:01 PM
I might be in the minority but I believe that the very fact that this issue was debated and voted on is a huge step forward and victory for those of us who want an end to this nonsense.

Think about it, not so long ago (last year) the very idea of putting this to a vote or questioning the POTUS and the war effort was deemed almost criminal and definitely unpatriotic. We now have more people seeing the futility of the war and though this vote didn't pass now it will pass sooner rather than later.

Your just a stupid Islamic **** that has zero understanding of what's really going on. **** off and die already.

We'll be sorry so you've said
I'm not sorry
Bang You're Dead

Die mother ****er die mother ****er die

The only thing better than that video Hog Farmer posted would be if you were on the receiving end of it.

go bowe
06-23-2006, 01:02 PM
There is a legitimate arguement that can be made (and Kerry's proposal goes to the heart of)... the the Iraqi people won't ever be forced to take control of their own nation until we put a deadline in place. Just like with contract negoatiations in the NFL... nothing really happens until the night before training camp. The dead line can serve a psychological purspose.i'm not in favor of an immediate withdrawal (mainly because i see progress in the development of an iraqi government)...

but deadlines have shown to be very effective in moving along the iraqi political process, so maybe there's something to be said for a timeline for phased withdrawal...

Pitt Gorilla
06-23-2006, 01:06 PM
If by "we" you mean the Bush Administration? Then no. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3275925&postcount=21).

If by "we" you mean Kerry, Feingold, many of the Dems in Congress and the vast majority of Americas? Then Yes.I disagree, jaz. I think BD has it right; now that we're there, we're there to stay (in some capacity). Even the Dems have to understand that the oil there is valuable enough for us to maintain a presence.

Of course, I think this also represents key argument for not drilling Alaska; as long as it remains in the ground, it's a reserve.

Mr. Laz
06-23-2006, 01:07 PM
Your just a stupid Islamic **** that has zero understanding of what's really going on. **** off and die already.

We'll be sorry so you've said
I'm not sorry
Bang You're Dead

Die mother ****er die mother ****er die

The only thing better than that video Hog Farmer posted would be if you were on the receiving end of it.
holy shit :eek:

Pitt Gorilla
06-23-2006, 01:08 PM
Your just a stupid Islamic **** that has zero understanding of what's really going on. **** off and die already.

We'll be sorry so you've said
I'm not sorry
Bang You're Dead

Die mother ****er die mother ****er die

The only thing better than that video Hog Farmer posted would be if you were on the receiving end of it.Might I suggest the ignore function?

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 01:10 PM
It's interesting how Iraq is now viewed as 'the war' by some and not just another theater of operations in the global war against terrorism.

In order to believe that you would have to believe that if 9/11 had not happened GWB would have lived contently with SH and not invaded Iraq.

I don't believe that for one minute. Hence, the WOT angle of the war in Iraq is not the motivation or the rationale. It is a convenient unintended consequence that happened after a host of other justifications failed to hold water.

Chiefs Minor Satellite
06-23-2006, 01:11 PM
And I thought I was ugly!

This is a taco:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=2578&stc=1

Chiefs Minor Satellite
06-23-2006, 01:12 PM
It's called 'foresight'. It's only 'hindsight' when your foresight was wrong.

Ask around... I've been saying the same exact thing for 4 years now. Since long before the war started.

Heresay.

Donger
06-23-2006, 01:17 PM
In order to believe that you would have to believe that if 9/11 had not happened GWB would have lived contently with SH and not invaded Iraq.

I don't believe that for one minute. Hence, the WOT angle of the war in Iraq is not the motivation or the rationale. It is a convenient unintended consequence that happened after a host of other justifications failed to hold water.

Do you support the other theaters of operations in the global war against terrorism? Afghanistan? SE Asia? Et al?

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 01:19 PM
Do you support the other theaters of operations in the global war against terrorism? Afghanistan? SE Asia? Et al?

Depends. Were they operational before 9/11? Before the war in Iraq? If so, then yes. If not, then they have become necessary BECAUSE of our reaction to 9/11 not the other way around. Iraq would certainly fit the 'not' scenario.

Donger
06-23-2006, 01:23 PM
Depends. Were they operational before 9/11? Before the war in Iraq? If so, then yes. If not, then they have become necessary BECAUSE of our reaction to 9/11 not the other way around. Iraq would certainly fit the 'not' scenario.

Are you serious? We shouldn't pursue groups that want to kill us, regardless of their motivation?

You'd be okay with a group that formed after 9/11 or the invasion of Iraq blowing up a bunch of Americans, because you could understand their motivation (revenge)?

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 01:30 PM
Are you serious? We shouldn't pursue groups that want to kill us, regardless of their motivation?

You'd be okay with a group that formed after 9/11 or the invasion of Iraq blowing up a bunch of Americans, because you could understand their motivation (revenge)?

Uh, no but thanks for distorting my words and misquoting me. :rolleyes:

Your question was 'Do you support the other theaters of operations in the global war against terrorism? Afghanistan? SE Asia? Et al?' and I responded yes, if they were operational before 9/11 then they likely have nothing to do with our failed policies in the ME post 9/11.

Accordingly, does it make sense for a firefighter to start fires in hopes that other pyromaniacs will then come out and play? :hmmm:

Donger
06-23-2006, 01:34 PM
Uh, no but thanks for distorting my words and misquoting me. :rolleyes:

Your question was 'Do you support the other theaters of operations in the global war against terrorism? Afghanistan? SE Asia? Et al?' and I responded yes, if they were operational before 9/11 then they likely have nothing to do with our failed policies in the ME post 9/11.

Accordingly, does it make sense for a firefighter to start fires in hopes that other pyromaniacs will then come out and play? :hmmm:

I didn't misquote you. I posed a question. A question you didn't answer.

Would you be okay with us going after groups or individuals who intend harm against Americans and/or American interests, even if those groups came to being AFTER 9/11 and/or Iraq?

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 01:36 PM
I didn't misquote you. I posed a question. A question you didn't answer.

Would you be okay with us going after groups or individuals who intend harm against Americans and/or American interests, even if those groups came to being AFTER 9/11 and/or Iraq?

Depends. Does that mean starting wars in countries where they happened to be located. Hell no. Does that mean using covert and low civilian death/suffering operations to target select groups and their leaders. Yep.

The US does not have the right to arbitrarily invade countries in order to fight their 'WOT.'

jAZ
06-23-2006, 01:37 PM
It's interesting how Iraq is now viewed as 'the war' by some and not just another theater of operations in the global war against terrorism.
I wish that view had been more widespread at the time we went to war. We would have more widely realized what a distraction invading Iraq was to fighting terrorism and likely we would have been far better off now.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 01:38 PM
Heresay.
so.

Donger
06-23-2006, 01:38 PM
Depends. Does that mean starting wars in countries where they happened to be located. Hell no. Does that mean using covert and low civilian death/suffering operations to target select groups and their leaders. Yep.

The US does not have the right to arbitrarily invade countries in order to fight their 'WOT.'

If that country's government is harboring the terrorists and won't hand them over, then yes, we do.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 01:39 PM
Do you support the other theaters of operations in the global war against terrorism? Afghanistan? SE Asia? Et al?
Sure, so.

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 01:41 PM
If that country's government is harboring the terrorists and won't hand them over, then yes, we do.

No we don't. We are not the world's JJE. Especially when some of the countries who allegedly harbor such folks hold no economic incentive for us to fight the 'WOT' in their yards...you know, like Iraq coincidently does.

Donger
06-23-2006, 01:44 PM
No we don't. We are not the world's JJE. Especially when some of the countries who allegedly harbor such folks hold no economic incentive for us to fight the 'WOT' in their yards...you know, like Iraq coincidently does.

I see. So, you're fine with pursuing our enemies, as long as we're invited.

Thanks, got it.

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 01:45 PM
I see. So, you're fine with pursuing our enemies, as long as we're invited.

Thanks, got it.

No, I'm fine with us respecting other county's sovereignty and international law.

Donger
06-23-2006, 01:47 PM
No, I'm fine with us respecting other county's sovereignty and international law.

Yes, got it. At the risk of putting our own security at risk.

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 01:50 PM
Yes, got it. At the risk of putting our own security at risk.

Well, if we let one country willy nilly invade other countries based on their sense of insecurity then what kind of world would we have? Or are you saying only the US would enjoy this privilege, this right? Everyone else has to play by the rules...the ones we decide?

Donger
06-23-2006, 01:57 PM
Well, if we let one country willy nilly invade other countries based on their sense of insecurity then what kind of world would we have? Or are you saying only the US would enjoy this privilege, this right? Everyone else has to play by the rules...the ones we decide?

Oh heck no. See, I remember 19 f*cking whackjobs entering OUR country in order to fly planes full of innocent Americans into buildings in order to fulfill their hatred. I remember that they tried to blow up the WTC before 9/11, too. I remember Khobar Towers. The USS Cole. Our embassies in Africa, among others.

Pursuing these animals wherever they hide, whether invited or not, welcomed or not, IS our right.

The world's an ugly, vicious place. Wishing for it not to be so only makes us more vunerable.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 02:00 PM
Pursuing these animals wherever they hide, whether invited or not, welcomed or not, IS our right.
Which is why we would have invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq if "the War" was about actually terrorism.

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 02:03 PM
Which is why we would have invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq if "the War" was about actually terrorism.




http://www.mperia.com/images/artists/bling_bling_kaching-bling_bling_kaching.jpg


:clap: ROFL ROFL

Donger
06-23-2006, 02:04 PM
Which is why we would have invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq if "the War" was about actually terrorism.

We didn't have to invade Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have been rather aggressive and cooperative in finding and killing our enemies (and theirs) within the kingdom.

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2006, 02:07 PM
http://www.mperia.com/images/artists/bling_bling_kaching-bling_bling_kaching.jpg


:clap: ROFL ROFL

Somebody please shoot that POS.

banyon
06-23-2006, 02:11 PM
You mean like the 49 nations in the “Coalition of the willing” that gave support for invasion?...


...There, even though we agree on several things, it should be quite obvious that for each point there’s an equally reasonable counter point.
Are you still so sure ‘bout your list?

Thanks for actually addressin' the topic Radar. ;)

Anyway, I'll respond to your thorough reply when I get a bit more time. Don't think I forgot about you. My attention's just a little more divided at work, that's all.

Radar Chief
06-23-2006, 02:21 PM
Thanks for actually addressin' the topic Radar. ;)

Anyway, I'll respond to your thorough reply when I get a bit more time. Don't think I forgot about you. My attention's just a little more divided at work, that's all.

Hey not a problem. I posted most of that in a hurry ‘cuase of work issues also, so take it easy on my Mr. Lawyer Man. :grovel: ;)

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 02:26 PM
We didn't have to invade Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have been rather aggressive and cooperative in finding and killing our enemies (and theirs) within the kingdom.

Using the example of the Saudis, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because the AQ connection BEFORE 9/11 was insubstantial at best. Whereas the connection to the Saudis and 9/11 WAS substantial and well known.

If you are using the excuse of terror as a means of being/staying in Iraq (which you are) then it holds no water as the terror from that country increased AFTER we invaded. Meanwhile real links, ties, and finances would be traced TO SA before and leading up to 9/11.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 02:26 PM
We didn't have to invade Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have been rather aggressive and cooperative in finding and killing our enemies (and theirs) within the kingdom.
Stick to your own point. SA is where the terrorists were. Iraq was not where the terrorist were.

Suggesting that we needed to invade Iraq because SA was cooperating is a false choice. We didn't need to invade either. That's the (rather self evident but politically uncomfortable) point.

Donger
06-23-2006, 02:33 PM
Stick to your own point. SA is where the terrorists were. Iraq was not where the terrorist were.

Suggesting that we needed to invade Iraq because SA was cooperating is a false choice. We didn't need to invade either. That's the (rather self evident but politically uncomfortable) point.

Mememe seems to be of the opinion that we shouldn't use overt force against a nation that is knowingly and willingly harboring enemies of our country intent on doing us harm and will not cooperate with bringing them to justice. I'm of the opposite opinion. That's my 'point.' She seems more concerned with international law and how we will 'look' in the eyes of the world than killing our enemies.

I disagree, but she's still entitled to her opinion.

And, like I said, the Saudis have been cooperating with us and doing a good job of policing their own turf. Hence, no need for invasion.

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 02:34 PM
Mememe seems to be of the opinion that we shouldn't use overt force against a nation that is knowingly and willingly harboring enemies of our country intent on doing us harm and will not cooperate with bringing them to justice. I'm of the opposite opinion. That's my 'point.' She seems more concerned with international law and how we will 'look' in the eyes of the world than killing our enemies.

I disagree, but she's still entitled to her opinion.

Oh, so you defend your point by pointing out the 'fallacy' in mine? :hmmm:

You can't defend your point because it doesn't stand when applied to Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Donger
06-23-2006, 02:35 PM
Oh, so you defend your point by pointing out the 'fallacy' in mine? :hmmm:

I'm not of the opinion that I need to defend my point of hunting our enemies, period.

It's common sense to me.

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 02:37 PM
I'm not of the opinion that I need to defend my point of hunting our enemies, period.

It's common sense to me.

Yeah, it's this sort of 'common sense' that makes having one country with too much unchecked power VERY dangerous. History proves it repeatedly.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 02:38 PM
Mememe seems to be of the opinion that we shouldn't use overt force against a nation that is knowingly and willingly harboring enemies of our country intent on doing us harm and will not cooperate with bringing them to justice. I'm of the opposite opinion. That's my 'point.'
Well your point seems to be flawed given that your assessment of her opinion doesn't fit her past statements of support for invading Afganistan.

Donger
06-23-2006, 02:39 PM
Yeah, it's this sort of 'common sense' that makes having one country with too much unchecked power VERY dangerous. History proves it repeatedly.

Are you suggesting that we have too much power? Who should be 'checking' us?

And, what history is repeating? What parallels can you draw between present day and the past?

Donger
06-23-2006, 02:41 PM
Well your point seems to be flawed given that your assessment of her opinion doesn't fit her past statements of support for invading Afganistan.

Perhaps you should take that up with her. She's the one that seems fine with ignoring terrorists that 'we' created post-9/11 and/or the countries and governments that harbor them.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 02:43 PM
Perhaps you should take that up with her. She's the one that seems fine with ignoring terrorists that 'we' created post-9/11 and/or the countries and governments that harbor them.
I'd say that's for the two of you to sort out. I'm just trying to get you two on the right track because the track you chose is flawed.

Donger
06-23-2006, 02:45 PM
I'd say that's for the two of you to sort out. I'm just trying to get you two on the right track because the track you chose is flawed.

ROFL

Yeah, thanks for clearing that up, jAZ. Your guidance is appreciated.

Maybe your time would be better spent telling the Democrats how to get their act together?

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 02:46 PM
Perhaps you should take that up with her. She's the one that seems fine with ignoring terrorists that 'we' created post-9/11 and/or the countries and governments that harbor them.

You are not only full of sh*t but a liar.

I never said anything about ignoring them. I said we should not be invading countries and starting wars to 'beat them.' I said I would be in favor of other means that would not mean our country violating international laws and other country's sovereignty by invading and occupying their lands.

You are presenting this false dichotomy/false choice to further the disillusion that is the fraud called the WOT and with it the preemptive strike doctrine.

It is dangerous and if ANY OTHER COUNTRY BESIDE THE US WAS DOING IT WE'D BE OUTRAGED...and rightfully so.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 02:47 PM
The Saudis have been rather aggressive and cooperative in finding and killing our enemies (and theirs) within the kingdom.
Again... when do we invade SA?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20150

Saudi Accountability?
By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 14, 2005

Responding to last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Saudi Arabia’s role in the war on terror, entitled “Saudi Arabia: Friend or Foe in the War on Terror?”, Riyadh’s ambassador to the U.S., Prince Turki al-Faisal, charged the committee members with ignorance. "Judging by the statements made at the hearing, it appears that the members of the Committee are not fully aware of the significant steps Saudi Arabia has taken in the war on terrorism and extremism.” Worse, according to the prince, U.S. senators “chose to ignore the realities for the sake of political expediency.”

Did they really? The U.S. National Intelligence Reform Act of December 2004 requires development of a Presidential strategy to confront Islamic extremism in collaboration with Saudi Arabia. So far, however, the level of Saudi cooperation has been difficult to gauge. In September, for instance, a Government Accounting Office (GAO) report noted that U.S. agencies have been unable to determine the extent of Saudi Arabia’s domestic and international cooperation.

Evidence further suggests that Saudi Arabia, far from cracking down on terror, is actively enabling it. Thus, testifying before the Committee, Daniel Glaser, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes at the Treasury Department, expressed concern that the Saudis are continuing to fund terror despite repeated promises to stop. Indeed, last August, Y'akub Abu Assab, a senior Hamas operative, was captured after he opened the Judea regional Hamas Communication Center in East Jerusalem. Assab transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars, as well as operational instructions from Hamas headquarters in Saudi Arabia to Hamas operatives in the West Bank and Gaza for terror attacks in Israel, as well as funds for the families of suicide bombers.

Glaser also noted that, in a “August 29, 2005 program aired in Saudi Arabia on Iqra TV, a Saudi-based station, which solicited funds for the Saudi Committee for the Support of the al Quds Intifadah ... Saudi Arabia's secretary-general of the official Muslim World League Koran Memorization Commission, Sheikh Abdallah Basfar, urged Muslims everywhere to fund terrorism.” He said: “The Prophet said: 'He who equips a fighter -- it is as if he himself fought.' You lie in your bed, safe in your own home, and donate money and Allah credits you with the rewards of a fighter. What is this? A privilege.” Basfar asked donors to direct funds to a Joint Account 98 at “all banks in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”

“Account 98,” according to Glaser, “had been a regular issue of concern that we have raised with the Saudis at all levels. They have repeatedly assured us that Account 98 no longer exists and that they are making efforts to staunch the flow of funds to these groups.” In other words, the Saudis tell us that they are implementing their promises even as they continue to fund terrorism.

Former U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Director James Woolsey testified before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Government Reform in April this year that “[s]ome $85-90 billion has been spent from sources in Saudi Arabia in the last 30 years, spreading Wahhabi beliefs throughout the world.”

At least two members of the Saudi government, Riyadh Governor Prince Salman and Minister of Defense Prince Sultan, are sponsors of the Saudi High Commission, which evidence detailed in the 9/11 victims lawsuits shows “has long acted as a fully integrated component of al-Qaeda’s logistical and financial support infrastructure.” Moreover, the lawsuits detail that, “the Sept. 11 attacks were a ‘direct, intended and foreseeable product of [the High Commission’s] participation in al-Qaeda’s jihadist campaign.'”

Princes Salman and Prince Sultan are also affiliated with the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), which “had been involved in terror plans and plots and had purposely directed its activities against the United States.” The Princes have also been affiliated with the Saudi Charity al- Haramain, whose U.S. branches were shut down.

The most important finding by the GAO’s September report, however, was buried in a footnote. It says: “the distinction between the [Saudi] government’s support and funding, versus that provided by entities and individuals, especially in the case of Saudi charities’ alleged activities, is not always clear.”

While the U.S. Treasury Department is obligated to monitor funders of terrorism, the GAO reports that Treasury is not fulfilling its duty, in that Treasury “does not identify, monitor, or counter the support and funding or the global propagation of Islamic extremism as it relates to an ideology.” This ideology, according to the GAO, “denies the legitimacy of non-believers and practitioners of other forms of Islam, and that explicitly promotes hatred, intolerance, and violence…” Indeed, the propagation of this ideology, known as “DAWA,” is an integral part of Islamic institutions in the West.

Saudi officials, for their part, seem intent on obfuscating the kingdom’s ties to terrorism. “Saudi Arabia now has in place world-class laws and regulations to combat terror financing,” Prince Turki has maintained. At the same time, the prince is unwilling to account for the failure of the Saudi government to fulfill its promises to stop the propagation “Islamic extremism.” But he is perfectly willing to fault American policymakers for holding hearings to determine Saudi accountability in financing terrorism. Following last week’s hearing, the prince complained that “events like the hearing today do not contribute to a spirit of cooperation and only serve to reinforce negative misconceptions and half-truths.”

American legislators, however, have grown impatient with Saudi spin. Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) stated at last week’s hearing that “Saudi Arabia needs to understand that we expect it to be a helpful ally in the war against terrorism and that there will be serious consequences for the U.S.-Saudi relationship if it is not.” In view of the Saudis’ continuing support of Hamas and Prince Turki’s dishonest remarks, it seems the time is ripe for the U.S. to spell out what those consequences are.

At the very least, Saudi Arabia’s lack of cooperation should not be rewarded. From that perspective, last Friday’s decision to grant the kingdom membership in the World Trade Organization is a step in the wrong direction.

Radar Chief
06-23-2006, 02:48 PM
Well your point seems to be flawed given that your assessment of her opinion doesn't fit her past statements of support for invading Afganistan.

:spock: She didn’t support invading Afghanistan. Not sure where you get that one.
Her, DanT, Logical and I went ‘round & ‘round ‘bout that over at PSP.

Donger
06-23-2006, 02:50 PM
You are not only full of sh*t but a liar.

I never said anything about ignoring them. I said we should not be invading countries and starting wars to 'beat them.' I said I would be in favor of other means that would not mean our country violating international laws and other country's sovereignty by invading and occupying their lands.

You are presenting this false dichotomy/false choice to further the disillusion that is the fraud called the WOT and with it the preemptive strike doctrine.

It is dangerous and if ANY OTHER COUNTRY BESIDE THE US WAS DOING IT WE'D BE OUTRAGED...and rightfully so.

And, if that country is knowingly and willingly harboring enemies of this country, and is not being cooperative is getting them removed or dead, would you be in favor of using covert force to remove them?

If covert force is unsuccessful, would you then be in favor of using overt force?

These are terrorists that 'we' created after 9/11.

Radar Chief
06-23-2006, 02:52 PM
Again... when do we invade SA?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20150

Saudi Accountability?
By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 14, 2005

How many neighbors has SA invaded?
Sanctions have they flaunted?
Members of there own country did they gassed?
Do we have access/cooperation from them?
And finally, why is it either or with you?

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 02:53 PM
Are you suggesting that we have too much power? Who should be 'checking' us?

And, what history is repeating? What parallels can you draw between present day and the past?

What I am saying, just so you can be clear and not distort, is the US or any country who believes it has the right, indeed responsibility, to invade other countries simply on the belief that their security is at risk is a dangerous country.

As far as checks and previous history, We don't have a similiar dynamic in that one country holds the title of Single World Superpower and with it the ability to conquer the planet with weapons that could destroy the globe and not one nation powerful enough to stand toe to toe with the superpower.

We do have instances in history where there were powerful entities and their abuse of power ended up in self destruction. I'd like to think the US will not follow that foolish path.

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 02:58 PM
And, if that country is knowingly and willingly harboring enemies of this country, and is not being cooperative is getting them removed or dead, would you be in favor of using covert force to remove them?

If covert force is unsuccessful, would you then be in favor of using overt force?

These are terrorists that 'we' created after 9/11.

Ok, so now it's harboring enemies of the country. I'm sorry, that is too vague.

No, I do not support invading entire countries based on a less than 1% instance of the population (often times foreigners) being considered terrorists.

Target their governments in creative ways and means but leave the citizens of those nations at peace.

Donger
06-23-2006, 03:00 PM
Ok, so now it's harboring enemies of the country. I'm sorry, that is too vague.

No, I do not support invading entire countries based on a less than 1% instance of the population (often times foreigners) being considered terrorists.

Target their governments in creative ways and means but leave the citizens of those nations at peace.

How about 'enemies of our country intent on killing Americans and destroying American interests'? Is that less vague?

go bowe
06-23-2006, 03:03 PM
Mememe seems to be of the opinion that we shouldn't use overt force against a nation that is knowingly and willingly harboring enemies of our country intent on doing us harm and will not cooperate with bringing them to justice. I'm of the opposite opinion. . .boy, you sure hit that on the head...

that is, if you're talking about afghanistan...

iraq "harbored" a handful, if that, of terrorists and by some reports killed one of them...

others were hooked up with ansar or whateverthe****they'recalled, which was not supported by saddammit and were not even in an area controlled by the baghdad government, iirc...

i don't think a few terrorists over the years begins to compare with the situation in afghanistan, where thousands and thousands of terrorists were harbored by the taliban government, including our seemingly forgotten enemy osama been hidin'...

personally, i never found the terrorist connection to be of any real significance and hardly a basis for war...

jAZ
06-23-2006, 03:03 PM
How many neighbors has SA invaded?
Sanctions have they flaunted?
Members of there own country did they gassed?
Do we have access/cooperation from them?
And finally, why is it either or with you?
You should address your criteria to Donger. His standard to justify preemptive attacks is:

"Pursuing these animals wherever they hide, whether invited or not, welcomed or not, IS our right."

I'd guess he doesn't care much about that other stuff as it's entirely unrelated to the War on Terrorism. But I'll leave it to him to address.

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 03:03 PM
How about 'enemies of our country intent on killing Americans and destroying American interests'? Is that less vague?

Are you talking 20k people out of a population of 26 million people?

No, I would say the trade off is not worth it. And I'd be right...

that is the number of people in Iraq estimated to be part of the insurgency (and only an estimated 10% of that number are considered 'terrorists') within the total population. And we have all seen how well that has worked out. :rolleyes:

jAZ
06-23-2006, 03:04 PM
:spock: She didn’t support invading Afghanistan. Not sure where you get that one.
Her, DanT, Logical and I went ‘round & ‘round ‘bout that over at PSP.
The many posts on this site I've read asserting such. I don't know anything about any views she express on PSP.

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 03:05 PM
You should address your criteria to Donger. His standard to justify preemptive attacks is:

"Pursuing these animals wherever they hide, whether invited or not, welcomed or not, IS our right."

I'd guess he doesn't care much about that other stuff as it's entirely unrelated to the War on Terrorism. But I'll leave it to him to address.

Yep, doesn't matter if the terrorists actually DID something like 9/11*. Just that they are part of an organization that MIGHT**. :rolleyes:

*See Saudia Arabia.

**See Iraq.

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 03:06 PM
[QUOTE=go bo]

personally, i never found the terrorist connection to be of any real significance and hardly a basis for war...

Bravo, spoken from someone who really wanted to believe the rationale. :clap:

Donger
06-23-2006, 03:09 PM
You should address your criteria to Donger. His standard to justify preemptive attacks is:

"Pursuing these animals wherever they hide, whether invited or not, welcomed or not, IS our right."

I'd guess he doesn't care much about that other stuff as it's entirely unrelated to the War on Terrorism. But I'll leave it to him to address.

Preemptive? Would we have been preemptive if we had attacked the Japanese fleet steaming towards Pearl in December, 1941?

I'm talking about known enemies. Known enemies that we know want to cause us harm. Enemies that are perhaps being harbored and sheltered by a foreign nation. A nation that is not cooperating with us to bring them to justice.

Sorry, but I'm of the opinion that we have the right to take matters into our own hands at that point. Covert if possible, overt if necessary.

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 03:12 PM
Preemptive? Would we have been preemptive if we had attacked the Japanese fleet steaming towards Pearl in December, 1941?

I'm talking about known enemies. Known enemies that we know want to cause us harm. Enemies that are perhaps being harbored and sheltered by a foreign nation. A nation that is not cooperating with us to bring them to justice.

Sorry, but I'm of the opinion that we have the right to take matters into our own hands at that point. Covert if possible, overt if necessary.

Recent German polls found the US to be more dangerous to world peace than Iran. Under YOUR criteria Germany should be able to invade the US if it's government felt their security was at risk.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 03:12 PM
Preemptive? Would we have been preemptive if we had attacked the Japanese fleet steaming towards Pearl in December, 1941?

I'm talking about known enemies. Known enemies that we know want to cause us harm. Enemies that are perhaps being harbored and sheltered by a foreign nation. A nation that is not cooperating with us to bring them to justice.
Like Saudi Arabia and unlike Iraq?

jAZ
06-23-2006, 03:13 PM
Like Saudi Arabia and unlike Iraq?
Not to leave out Pakistan, Afganistan, Iran and just about everyone else in the region BUT Iraq?

Radar Chief
06-23-2006, 03:13 PM
The many posts on this site I've read asserting such. I don't know anything about any views she express on PSP.

Care to point some out then? ‘Cause I’ve never read what you’re claim’n.

Donger
06-23-2006, 03:14 PM
Recent German polls found the US to be more dangerous to world peace than Iran. Under YOUR criteria Germany should be able to invade the US if it's government felt their security was at risk.

Sure. I'd enjoy that, in fact. If you'd throw in the French, too, even better.

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 03:15 PM
Sure. I'd enjoy that, in fact. If you'd throw in the French, too, even better.

You are insane. I don't know why I've wasted my time taking you seriously here. I'm done.

Donger
06-23-2006, 03:16 PM
Not to leave out Pakistan, Afganistan, Iran and just about everyone else in the region BUT Iraq?

Well, let's see.

Afghanistan didn't cooperate, and we invaded. They are now cooperating.

Pakistan cooperated from the outset = no need for overt force.

Saudi Arabia. Cooperating. No need to invade.

Iraq didn't cooperate, and we invaded.

Iran. I'm all for covert measures, and there probably already are assets in place.

Simple stuff, jAZ.

Radar Chief
06-23-2006, 03:17 PM
Recent German polls found the US to be more dangerous to world peace than Iran. Under YOUR criteria Germany should be able to invade the US if it's government felt their security was at risk.

Link?
Let’em try.

Radar Chief
06-23-2006, 03:18 PM
You are insane.

:LOL: Well, if anyone’s gonna recognize “insane” it’d be Denise. I’d be worried if I were you, Donger. ;)

Donger
06-23-2006, 03:19 PM
You are insane. I don't know why I've wasted my time taking you seriously here. I'm done.

ROFL

Of course it's up to each individual country. If we were harboring terrorists intent on killing Germans, they'd be more than willing to come on in and get them. It's hypothetical, of course, since we don't.

Let's deal with reality here, okay?

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 03:30 PM
Link?
Let’em try.

I was wrong. It appears many nations share that view. Look at all the countries who could invade us under DongerWorld 'threat to security' criteria.

http://www.nbc17.com/military/9363297/detail.html

Survey: U.S. Troops More Dangerous Than Iran

WASHINGTON -- The presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is considered a greater threat to Mideast stability than the current government in Iran, according to a new poll of European and Muslim countries.

The poll found that people in Britain, France, Germany, Spain and Russia rated the presence of troops in Iraq higher than the government in Iran as a threat, according to polling by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Views of U.S. troops in Iraq were even more negative in countries like Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan.

Iran's nuclear program is seen as a serious threat by international leaders, who have been pressuring Iran to drop that program. Leaders of the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain and Germany have offered Iran, which says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, incentives to suspend uranium enrichment.

But the war in Iraq trumps the Iranian situation as a perceived danger to the world at a time when the image of the United States and its war on terrorism continues to drop internationally. America's image rebounded in some countries last year after the U.S. offered aid to tsunami victims, but those gains have disappeared, the Pew poll found.


The 15 nation poll also found:
Overall support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism has declined even among close allies.

Favorable opinions of the United States continue to fall, with sharp declines in Spain, Turkey and India.

People in the United States and European countries are far more likely than those in Muslim countries to view the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections as a negative development.

Western European nations and predominantly Muslim nations have sharply different views on Iran, which the U. S.. claims is developing nuclear weapons.

Majorities in 10 of 14 foreign countries including Britain say the Iraq war has made the world more dangerous.

Concern about global warming is low in China and United States, the two largest producers of greenhouse gases, while high elsewhere.

The polling in 15 countries of samples ranging from about 900 to 2,000 adults was conducted in April and May and has a margin of error ranging from 2 to 6 percentage points. The polling included Muslim oversamples in the European countries. In China, India and Pakistan, the polling was based on urban samples.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 03:32 PM
Well, let's see.

Afghanistan didn't cooperate, and we invaded. They are now cooperating.

Pakistan cooperated from the outset = no need for overt force.

Saudi Arabia. Cooperating. No need to invade.

Iraq didn't cooperate, and we invaded.

Iran. I'm all for covert measures, and there probably already are assets in place.

Simple stuff, jAZ.
Sure it's simple to lie about the facts... once you do that you can draw any conclusion you wish. Of course, all evidence suggests that Bin Laden is in Pakistan and SA is actively funding anti-American terrorists. To this day, no credible evidence suggests that Saddam was doing either of those.

But let's ignore those facts and assert the opposite so this was feels good.

Radar Chief
06-23-2006, 03:35 PM
Recent German polls found the US to be more dangerous to world peace than Iran. Under YOUR criteria Germany should be able to invade the US if it's government felt their security was at risk.

The poll found that people in Britain, France, Germany, Spain and Russia rated the presence of troops in Iraq higher than the government in Iran as a threat, according to polling by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Views of U.S. troops in Iraq were even more negative in countries like Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan.

:LOL: :rolleyes:

go bowe
06-23-2006, 03:35 PM
[QUOTE=go bo]

personally, i never found the terrorist connection to be of any real significance and hardly a basis for war...

Bravo, spoken from someone who really wanted to believe the rationale. :clap:i did believe parts of it before the war and i still support the effort as long as their is significant progress on the political front in order to take the wind out of the insurgency...

and eventually establish a stable government, if possible...

jAZ
06-23-2006, 03:37 PM
ROFL

Of course it's up to each individual country. If we were harboring terrorists intent on killing Germans, they'd be more than willing to come on in and get them. It's hypothetical, of course, since we don't.

Let's deal with reality here, okay?
Ok... reality suggests that China feels imense pressure from the US in the form of American pop-culture, American democracy, American technology, American innovation, and American capital markets.

Let's promote WWIII by opening the door for them to take over.

Donger
06-23-2006, 03:37 PM
I was wrong. It appears many nations share that view. Look at all the countries who could invade us under DongerWorld 'threat to security' criteria.

http://www.nbc17.com/military/9363297/detail.html

Survey: U.S. Troops More Dangerous Than Iran

WASHINGTON -- The presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is considered a greater threat to Mideast stability than the current government in Iran, according to a new poll of European and Muslim countries.

The poll found that people in Britain, France, Germany, Spain and Russia rated the presence of troops in Iraq higher than the government in Iran as a threat, according to polling by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Views of U.S. troops in Iraq were even more negative in countries like Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan.

Iran's nuclear program is seen as a serious threat by international leaders, who have been pressuring Iran to drop that program. Leaders of the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain and Germany have offered Iran, which says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, incentives to suspend uranium enrichment.

But the war in Iraq trumps the Iranian situation as a perceived danger to the world at a time when the image of the United States and its war on terrorism continues to drop internationally. America's image rebounded in some countries last year after the U.S. offered aid to tsunami victims, but those gains have disappeared, the Pew poll found.


The 15 nation poll also found:
Overall support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism has declined even among close allies.

Favorable opinions of the United States continue to fall, with sharp declines in Spain, Turkey and India.

People in the United States and European countries are far more likely than those in Muslim countries to view the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections as a negative development.

Western European nations and predominantly Muslim nations have sharply different views on Iran, which the U. S.. claims is developing nuclear weapons.

Majorities in 10 of 14 foreign countries including Britain say the Iraq war has made the world more dangerous.

Concern about global warming is low in China and United States, the two largest producers of greenhouse gases, while high elsewhere.

The polling in 15 countries of samples ranging from about 900 to 2,000 adults was conducted in April and May and has a margin of error ranging from 2 to 6 percentage points. The polling included Muslim oversamples in the European countries. In China, India and Pakistan, the polling was based on urban samples.

Heh. As a 'threat to Mideast security' as opposed to a direct threat those countries and their citizens.

Please do try to keep up, my dear.

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 03:37 PM
:LOL: :rolleyes:

Guess you missed this part:

Majorities in 10 of 14 foreign countries including Britain say the Iraq war has made the world more dangerous.

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 03:38 PM
Heh. As a 'threat to Mideast security' as opposed to a direct threat those countries and their citizens.

Please do try to keep up, my dear.

You missed it too. Ooops, that means 10 countries out there could feel their security is at a heightened risk. DongerWorld is a scary place, indeed.

Majorities in 10 of 14 foreign countries including Britain say the Iraq war has made the world more dangerous.

Donger
06-23-2006, 03:39 PM
Ok... reality suggests that China feels imense pressure from the US in the form of American pop-culture, American democracy, American technology, American innovation, and American capital markets.

Let's promote WWIII by opening the door for them to take over.

Another hypothetical?

Liberals really are good with those, I'll admit.

Donger
06-23-2006, 03:41 PM
You missed it too.

No, I didn't miss it. It's just irrelevant.

But, if the British think that we are harboring terrorists that mean to cause them harm and we aren't cooperating in bringing them to justice, then fine, they can join the Germans and the French.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 03:42 PM
Another hypothetical?
What's hypothetical about that? And what's not hypothetical about Iraq's threat to the US?

Donger
06-23-2006, 03:43 PM
You missed it too. Ooops, that means 10 countries out there could feel their security is at a heightened risk. DongerWorld is a scary place, indeed.

I said nothing about a perceived, heightened risk. I'm talking about about known terrorists.

About as comparable as a potato and a dog.

But, you know that.

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 03:43 PM
No, I didn't miss it. It's just irrelevant.

But, if the British think that we are harboring terrorists that mean to cause them harm and we aren't cooperating in bringing them to justice, then fine, they can join the Germans and the French.

Irrelevant? The world's superpower is deemed more dangerous than some whackjob in Iran because they've let their sense of security be their guide and got themselves into a quagmire in Iraq? And that is irrelevant in Donger's world?

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 03:44 PM
Ok... reality suggests that China feels imense pressure from the US in the form of American pop-culture, American democracy, American technology, American innovation, and American capital markets.

Let's promote WWIII by opening the door for them to take over.

If they feel insecure then Donger has stated they have the right. I didn't see him make the exception to be only the US. And he certainly didn't vote in this poll.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=142091

Donger
06-23-2006, 03:45 PM
What's hypothetical about that? And what's not hypothetical about Iraq's threat to the US?

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Iraq.

Mememe and I were dicussing when/if she supports going after known terrorists being harbored by a willing and uncooperative foreign power/nation.

I think I know her answer.

Donger
06-23-2006, 03:46 PM
Irrelevant? The world's superpower is deemed more dangerous than some whackjob in Iran because they've let their sense of security be their guide and got themselves into a quagmire in Iraq? And that is irrelevant in Donger's world?

You obviously don't understand the European mentality.

That's fine.

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2006, 03:54 PM
You are insane. I don't know why I've wasted my time taking you seriously here. I'm done.


Wow, the queen BB dumping is upset because she thinks other people waste her time.

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 04:04 PM
You obviously don't understand the European mentality.

That's fine.

European mentality?

Your criteria was 'security at risk.' And jAZ provided you with a non-European hypothetical which you did not answer.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 04:06 PM
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Iraq.

Mememe and I were dicussing when/if she supports going after known terrorists being harbored by a willing and uncooperative foreign power/nation.

I think I know her answer.
Maybe you should take this discussion to a thread that isn't about Iraq. Otherwise, concede that the invasion of Iraq is at the center of your hypothetical above. Either way, one of your last few posts must be thrown out the window (rejection of the hypothetical or rejection of Iraq as part of this discussion).

jAZ
06-23-2006, 04:11 PM
Care to point some out then? ‘Cause I’ve never read what you’re claim’n.
I did a search but the search function is eff'ed up... It only returned 2 posts in the whole history of the board where Denise even typed the word Afganistan.

go bowe
06-23-2006, 04:13 PM
I did a search but the search function is eff'ed up... It only returned 2 posts in the whole history of the board where Denise even typed the word Afganistan.try searching for afghanistan... :p :p :p

Donger
06-23-2006, 04:27 PM
European mentality?

Your criteria was 'security at risk.' And jAZ provided you with a non-European hypothetical which you did not answer.

Like I said, if we were harboring terrorists that meant them harm and we weren't cooperating with to bring them to justice, sure, I'd say they'd have a right to come and get them, either covertly or if that didn't work, overtly.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 04:38 PM
try searching for afghanistan... :p :p :p
sweet... that doesn't mean the search function doesn't suck ass. Just to be clear.

Edit: I did a search for "afghanistan" and "support" or "supported" under denise and I didn't find anything in the DC. The archives are completely hosed. and the lounge is missing about 2 full years of stuff. So I don't think I'm going to find the posts I remember.

Joe Seahawk
06-23-2006, 05:23 PM
ROFL

I fear that in the run-up to the 2004 election, the administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut-and-run strategy. Their sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal dates, without adequate stability, is an invitation to failure. The hard work of rebuilding Iraq must not be dictated by the schedule of the next American election.
I have called for the administration to transfer sovereignty, and they must transfer it to the Iraqi people as quickly as circumstances permit. But it would be a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle to speed up the process simply to lay the groundwork for a politically expedient withdrawal of American troops. That could risk the hijacking of Iraq by terrorist groups and former Ba'athists.
John Kerry December 2003


http://www.cfr.org/publication/6576/making_america_secure_again.html

Logical
06-23-2006, 05:44 PM
Well the only good thing I can see coming out of these votes is the possibility that some Republicans will be turned out of office for supporting the President. Not much else could be hope for right now.

Logical
06-23-2006, 05:45 PM
sweet... that doesn't mean the search function doesn't suck ass. Just to be clear.

Edit: I did a search for "afghanistan" and "support" or "supported" under denise and I didn't find anything in the DC. The archives are completely hosed. and the lounge is missing about 2 full years of stuff. So I don't think I'm going to find the posts I remember.

Yup you won't find almost a a single thing from 2001 through 2004 pretty big chunk of our history unfortunately.

patteeu
06-24-2006, 08:40 AM
why would they need to vote on a withdrawl without a timetable.... it's called the original plan!

recxjAZ is OWN3D by recxjake. ROFL

patteeu
06-24-2006, 08:52 AM
Well, if we let one country willy nilly invade other countries based on their sense of insecurity then what kind of world would we have? Or are you saying only the US would enjoy this privilege, this right? Everyone else has to play by the rules...the ones we decide?

We live in a might makes right world. That's reality. That's also why it's so important that we retain our might.

International law is a myth. It only exists as long as the participants agree to continue operating under the myth.

patteeu
06-24-2006, 08:58 AM
Well your point seems to be flawed given that your assessment of her opinion doesn't fit her past statements of support for invading Afganistan.

She opposed invading Afghanistan.

patteeu
06-24-2006, 09:02 AM
I was wrong. It appears many nations share that view. Look at all the countries who could invade us under DongerWorld 'threat to security' criteria.

...

Under Donger's [correct] criteria, none of those countries will invade us because doing so would be more of a threat to their existance than sitting back and hoping for the best.

patteeu
06-24-2006, 09:05 AM
sweet... that doesn't mean the search function doesn't suck ass. Just to be clear.

Edit: I did a search for "afghanistan" and "support" or "supported" under denise and I didn't find anything in the DC. The archives are completely hosed. and the lounge is missing about 2 full years of stuff. So I don't think I'm going to find the posts I remember.

Or, alternatively, you could just admit that your memories are probably just imagination since she's had plenty of opportunities to support your contention in this thread but hasn't done so. Memyselfi didn't support the invasion of Afghanistan despite your flawed memory.

banyon
06-24-2006, 10:29 AM
Having trouble finding the incompetence, HC? No prob, there's plenty to go round...

1. Failing to build a real international coalition prior to the Iraq invasion, forcing the US to shoulder the full cost and consequences of the war.


You mean like the 49 nations in the “Coalition of the willing” that gave support for invasion?

Yep. That's exactly the one I mean. Here's a line-up card for both conflicts:

Gulf War I:

Members of the Coalition included Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and the United States of America. Germany and Japan provided financial assistance and donated military hardware instead of direct military assistance. America asked Israel not to participate in the war despite air strikes on Israeli citizens. India wasn't a part of the coalition but did extend military support to the United States in the form of refueling facilities. UK and American troops were 60% of the coalition troops, not to mention the shared costs.

Gulf War II:

UK, Korea, Italy, Poland, Romania, Georgia, Japan, Denmark, Australia, El Salvador, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Albania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Armenia, bosnia, Estonia, Macedonia, Kazakstan. The UK and USA troops make up 98% of the troops involved. Other countries like Poland and Spain have withdrawn.

One reads like an all-star team, the other is like the Royals, with the UK playing the Mike Sweeney role.


2. Approving the demobilization of the Iraqi Army in May, 2003 – bypassing the Joint Chiefs of Staff and reversing an earlier position, the President left hundreds of thousands of armed Iraqis disgruntled and unemployed, contributing significantly to the massive security problems American troops have faced during occupation.

This we actually agree on.

Cool. Everytime we agree it also underscores my original point that there is incompetence present.


3. Not equipping troops in Iraq with adequate body armor or armored HUMVEES.

HUMVEES aren’t meant to slug it out with the enemy. They survive by quickness, mobility. Armoring them has made them slower, less mobile, and they still can’t stand toe to toe with any other armored vehicle. The terrorists found a soft spot, unarmored vehicles, and attacked them with their best weapon, IED’s. Armoring them after the fact is called “roll’n with the punches”. Bitch’n ‘bout them not be’n armored before is armchair quarter back’n.

Ok, I agree with your point, but maybe counting on these vehicles to be the main transporting unit in urban warfare was the miscalculation?



4. Ignoring the advice Gen. Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more troops in Iraq – now Bush is belatedly adding troops, having allowed the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Shinseki said it would if there were not enough troops.

Gen. Tommy Franks obviously had different ideas. Is it his fault for not do’n exactly what Shinseki wanted also?

Nah, this is more or less just a symptom of the same problem. Whenever there was anyone with advice or information that contradicted what they wanted to do, the Administration either retired, fired, or ignored them.


5. Ignoring plans drawn up by the Army War College and other war-planning agencies, which predicted most of the worst security and infrastructure problems America faced in the early days of the Iraq occupation.

More armchair quarter back’n.[quote]

I think you mean Monday Morning quarterbackin', but the point is the same as the previous one.

[quote=banyon]
6. Making a case for war which ignored intelligence that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

You’re make’n this claim the day after a report stateing that we’ve found 500 chemical shells in Iraq.

You're not really hanging your hat on these rusted out casings are you? When the administration made the WMD claim, it was presented as a serious and immediate threat to our survival. That stuff would barely take out Overland Park.


9. Predicting Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.


Link?

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, in February 2003, dismissed reports that Pentagon budget specialists had put the cost of reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion during the first year -- in retrospect, relatively accurate forecasts. In testimony to Congress on March 27, 2003, Wolfowitz said Iraq "can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6338-2004Mar18?language=printer


10. Wildly underestimating the cost of the war.


Another we agree on.

Yup. Did you know this one?

On April 23, 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, laid out in a televised interview the costs to U.S. taxpayers of rebuilding Iraq. "The American part of this will be $1.7 billion," he said. "We have no plans for any further-on funding for this."

Ted Koppel actually did a double take and asked him again if he had misspoken.


11. Trusting Ahmed Chalabi, who has dismissed faulty intelligence he provided the President as necessary for getting the Americans to topple Saddam.

You say that as if “Curve ball” was the sole source for all intelligence.

Nope. just one of the most important wrt WMD's.

banyon
06-24-2006, 10:31 AM
12. Disbanding the Sunni Baathist managers responsible for Iraq's water, electricity, sewer system and all the other critical parts of that country's infrastructure.

Another we agree on.

Tally marks are adding up.


13. Failing to give UN weapons inspectors enough time to certify if weapons existed in Iraq.

They had +11 years. How long would’ve been long enough?

They didn't do so for 11 years under Resolution 1441. And a subsequent resolution would've stressed armed inspection units that would've gotten into any places that were allegedly denied access to



14. Including discredited intelligence concerning Nigerian Yellow Cake in his 2003 State of the Union.

That same issue included more information than what you appear to be claim’n.

What? sorry, I don't understand this comment.


15. Announcing that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended" aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, below a "Mission Accomplished" banner – more U.S. soldiers have died in combat since Bush's announcement than before it.

Major combat operations were over in Iraq. Everything else since then has been considerably smaller and on a local scale.

No they weren't. Just because the Iraqi army was through doesn't mean "major" combat ops were over. The vast majority of costs, injuries, and deaths have occured after that ridiculous photo-op. They knew, as do you, what they were trying to say, despite their later equivocations about it. WE've talked about that before though. I really like the analogy to spiking the football on the 10 yard line before you run into the end zone.



16. Awarding a multi-billion dollar contract to Halliburton in Iraq, which then repeatedly overcharged the government and served troops dirty food.

And if they’d went through the typical bid process you’d have bitched that it was take’n so long.

Since I was against the war from the beginning, I don't think I would bitch if they waitied a bit and were more careful before they decided how to waste our money.


17. Refusing to cede any control of Post-invasion Iraq to the international community, meaning reconstruction has received limited aid from European allies or the U.N.

You mean the same “international community” that didn’t want to help?

That's the one. Continuing to refuse access and aid from others is basically the mentality of a 6 year old. Its about cost, which we shouldn't be bearing virtually alone, whether that was at the beginning, or afterwards.


18. Failing to convince NATO allies why invading Iraq was important.


You mean like UK? Or like Italy? Spain?

No, like the rest. Also, Spain has mostly withdrawn, perhaps because they weren't convinced. The Brits, besides Blair, don't seem too conviced these days either.



19. Having no real plan for the occupation of Iraq.

Here you’re try’n to state opinion as fact.

Agreed. This wasn't my list. I just found it convenient. But the Administration did basically pretend that there would be no insurgency and that once we captured Baghdad, it would be over.


20. Limiting bidding on Iraq construction projects to "coalition partners," unnecessarily alienating important allies France, Germany and Russia.

You mean the same countries that were help’n to keep Saddam in power? All three of those countries were sell’n military equipment to’im up to, and in some cases even after, invasion.
Don’t you think this would have as much to do with get’n the people of Iraq to trust us?

we helped keep Saddam in power too, maybe we should exclude ourselves? Anway, This is basically the same response as to #17.


21. Diverting $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress.

Another we agree on.

peachy.


22. Shutting down an Iraqi newspaper for "inciting violence" – the move, which led in short order to street fighting in Fallujah, incited more violence than the newspaper ever had.

Right, and that violence had absolutely nothing to do with what the “paper” had been print’n before it was shut down.

If our new justification for this fiasco is "spreading Democracy", then you would think that a free press would be one of those values.


23. Telling Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan about plans to go to war with Iraq before Secretary of State Colin Powell.


]Do you have a link to this with some information other than heresay?
Even then, why are you so concerned ‘bout the order in which information is disseminated?

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0XPQ/is_2004_April_26/ai_n6263434
You don't see why this shows an unhealthy respect for how our government works? BTW Powell has denied this claim made by Bob Woodward, as he was continuing to play the "good soldier".


There, even though we agree on several things, it should be quite obvious that for each point there’s an equally reasonable counter point.
Are you still so sure ‘bout your list?

There wasn't a counter point for each. many times you agreed. The point was that there was plenty of incompetence. Even the Administration has begun to acknowledge the nature of these mistakes )except, of course, Cheney). Although they usually hedge such admissions with statements like "No one could have anticipated..." and the like, even though there were plenty of people anticipating such occurences and possibilities at the very time these decisions were made.

jAZ
06-24-2006, 11:41 AM
Or, alternatively, you could just admit that your memories are probably just imagination since she's had plenty of opportunities to support your contention in this thread but hasn't done so. Memyselfi didn't support the invasion of Afghanistan despite your flawed memory.
I can do that easily. It's entirely possible and with 2 votes against my 1 vote for... the burden is on me to support my point. Which I can't do. I can prove the the search function is worthless and the archives suck massive worthless ass.

Nightwish
06-24-2006, 12:02 PM
Neither party has much of a plan to brag about. The Dems have a plan for hasty retreat, but it isn't well thought-out. The Republicans seem to only have a plan to stave off admitting defeat, but they don't anything approaching a cohesive plan for success. Al Gore, last night on Letterman, said it best when he said we need to get our troops out as soon as we can, but we need to do so in a manner and on a timetable that doesn't leave Iraq entirely to its own vices and contribute to a full descent into civil war, therefore it is a decision that needs to be made very cautiously. Many of the Dems are playing on the country's tiredness, and using that emotional rhetoric to build up their support. The Repubs are playing on the country's sense of nationalism, and using that emotional rhetoric to build up their support. Neither side seems to care about the big picture. And while the Republicans are pretending to be all about the bigger picture, what they fail to comprehend is that peppering speeches with strategic insertions of the words "success" and "victory" does not amount to a plan of success or victory. They've hoped that the viewing public won't see through that, and obviously their own base hasn't, as evidenced by so many of their supporters on this forum.

Radar Chief
06-26-2006, 06:47 AM
Guess you missed this part:


Um, yea. I’d think that someone of your, supposedly, immense perception would’ve noticed that I highlighted that and therefore didn’t “miss” it.
But quite obviously you missed this, since you keep repeat’n the same mistake.

Recent German polls found the US to be more dangerous to world peace than Iran. Under YOUR criteria Germany should be able to invade the US if it's government felt their security was at risk.

The poll found that people in Britain, France, Germany, Spain and Russia rated the presence of troops in Iraq higher than the government in Iran as a threat, according to polling by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Views of U.S. troops in Iraq were even more negative in countries like Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan.

:LOL: Not that I’m actually surprised you wanted to misrepresent the information that you posted. :rolleyes:

patteeu
06-26-2006, 09:49 AM
I can do that easily. It's entirely possible and with 2 votes against my 1 vote for... the burden is on me to support my point. Which I can't do. I can prove the the search function is worthless and the archives suck massive worthless ass.

:thumb: