TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iraq completly and totally ****ed..

Iraq completly and totally ****ed..

I have noticed many people posting here that when Collin Powell was giving his testominy in UN many people genuinly supported him and thought that invading Iraq was a good idea..

But all I want to say is that I never bought his thougts and presentation..

I mean common!!

1. Saddam destroyed all his 'Sariya' missiles (or whatever it was named) to gain your trust..

2. He let all the UN inspectors visit his country. his so called nuclear sites, and every damn location you wanted..!

3. He said no only when US forced UN to visit Saddam palaces.. his sister's house, his home.. the so called 'Saddam's Palaces'.. it was a humiliation to him.. how could he explain this to his sister.. thats why he said no to them.. and in return he got death.

Sad!!!

I always knew right from begening that it was sham.. a plot.. I shouted loud.. like presents Iran case. That its a scam.. Iraq is NOT building WMDs.. they are NOT terrorists!! They will not bomb USA..!

Re: Iraq completly and totally ****ed..

quote:

Originally posted by Kinezi I have noticed many people posting here that when Collin Powell was giving his testominy in UN many people genuinly supported him and thought that invading Iraq was a good idea.. But all I want to say is that I never bought his thougts and presentation.. I mean common!! 1. Saddam destroyed all his 'Sariya' missiles (or whatever it was named) to gain your trust.. 2. He let all the UN inspectors visit his country. his so called nuclear sites, and every damn location you wanted..! 3. He said no only when US forced UN to visit Saddam palaces.. his sister's house, his home.. the so called 'Saddam's Palaces'.. it was a humiliation to him.. how could he explain this to his sister.. thats why he said no to them.. and in return he got death. Sad!!!

You are wrong! Iraq may not have had any WMD. But here is the thing that Saddam did that was interesting. He first of all never believed that the US would have invaded his country. 2. He tried to hint he did not have any WMD but at the same time purposely put suspicion on his claims, why? Because Hussein controlled and defended Iraq from countries like Iran, by putting out the notion that his country had all these weapons to defend itself or to attack. It takes a no brainier to figure that out

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11... PERIOD...

Wow....a Saddam advocate?

Sad!!!

To be fair none of you are arguing his point. I semi bought it myself. (that he had some stuff). But always thought if he did then so what he have worse. And he won't be able to send it over.

At least think I did... lol

Not to mention that he did hate Osama. Saddam was not a religious man therefore for him to send weapons to Osama would seem unrealistic as some people claim he would of have done.

I dont doubt the fact that we were lied to by this administration, but perhaps it was not a bad thing?

America would not go into any war without thinking they would benefit from it. Just like what most superpowers would do.


Despite its wrong cause, I think what was more important is that Bush and his team did not have a good aftermath strategy. If they would of committed to the surge (which Powell was all for in the beginning) than we wouldn't make such a big deal now.

The reason why liberals are so anti war right now is because its just to gather political points. Most of them voted for the war, and when it came time to getting re elected, they said, they made a mistake and would pull out! It's been two years of a Democratic Congress. What is happening?

I dont think this is just Bushes plans. I just laugh at you liberals that think that he Bush lied to you. Because your same leaders are lying to you every day, but you do not want to see that.

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedano Not to mention that he did hate Osama. Saddam was not a religious man therefore for him to send weapons to Osama would seem unrealistic as some people claim he would of have done. I dont doubt the fact that we were lied to by this administration, but perhaps it was not a bad thing? America would not go into any war without thinking they would benefit from it. Just like what most superpowers would do. Despite its wrong cause, I think what was more important is that Bush and his team did not have a good aftermath strategy. If they would of committed to the surge (which Powell was all for in the beginning) than we wouldn't make such a big deal now. The reason why liberals are so anti war right now is because its just to gather political points. Most of them voted for the war, and when it came time to getting re elected, they said, they made a mistake and would pull out! It's been two years of a Democratic Congress. What is happening? I dont think this is just Bushes plans. I just laugh at you liberals that think that he Bush lied to you. Because your same leaders are lying to you every day, but you do not want to see that.

Right on point! What I find hilarious is that congress (liberals) are running around screaming if they get to the white house theyll end this military operation. But wait, if they want they can end this operation as I'm typing this post, and just end the funding. But they keep funding it!

Another thing which I can not seem to understand is why Obama is shifting to the middle when it comes to the Iraq war? This is the same man that promised his blind supporters that he would end the war!

Really?

Does Obama want to be remembered as the first black president that lost the Middle East by the Republicans for the rest of the century? Dont think so!

Democrats will not pull out of Iraq. So what is this CHANGE really all about??

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Right on point! What I find hilarious is that congress (liberals) are running around screaming if they get to the white house theyll end this military operation. But wait, if they want they can end this operation as I'm typing this post, and just end the funding. But they keep funding it!

Ending the funding would not end the mission, it would endanger the troops by decreasing thier support staff. The mandate would still be to have them in Iraq but without money.

Not to mention cutting funnding to troops would be politically and moraly precarious.

I'm not sold on pulling out as the best option right now even if it is looking better then before. Going in was a mistake, it ruined a country and breached one of the most important international laws. The maintenance of soverienty is one of the main reasons the UN was founded, it has kept invasions to a minimum. Now "pre-emptive strikes" are options that any country can choose to use "in thier own defence".

None of this makes pulling out a good idea. The only criteria for pulling out that the US should (morally) consider is if Iraq will be stable after the departure of the troops. The other consideration is if the US is going to go bankrupt because of the military engagements ... but it might be to late for this one.

To the casual external observer obama is just a hype machine "time for change" into what? White voters are going to give them selfs a big pat on the back for finally "not being racist" by voting in a black pres. While the black voters are gonna vote him just because he is "black" (he's just as white as he is black......half and half = black? Weird.) .

Who said racism is dead? All I see is a litany of wishy washy bull shit words and no commitments to actual policy.

That said haven't been seeing much about it.

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedano Another thing which I can not seem to understand is why Obama is shifting to the middle when it comes to the Iraq war? This is the same man that promised his blind supporters that he would end the war! Really? Does Obama want to be remembered as the first black president that lost the Middle East by the Republicans for the rest of the century? Dont think so! Democrats will not pull out of Iraq. So what is this CHANGE really all about??

He wants a withdrawal within 16 months, which is an adequate wind down.

As for losing the middle east, the Iraq war was lost when it began.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish To the casual external observer obama is just a hype machine "time for change" into what? White voters are going to give them selfs a big pat on the back for finally "not being racist" by voting in a black pres. While the black voters are gonna vote him just because he is "black" (he's just as white as he is black......half and half = black? Weird.) . Who said racism is dead? All I see is a litany of wishy washy bull shit words and no commitments to actual policy. That said haven't been seeing much about it.

Actually there has been commitments to actual policy. Here is one..



It's the different between continuing the policies of the worst president in United States history or changing the government. I choose to change our government.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish All I see is a litany of wishy washy bull shit words and no commitments to actual policy. That said haven't been seeing much about it.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obam...ntForChange.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Wow....a Saddam advocate? Sad!!!

People did have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better living conditions then this bullshit democracy of Bush.

But all this is soooooooooooo unspecific!

I've tried reading the plan:

quote:

BARACk OBAMA�S PLAN Protect Social Security Obama is committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama will be honest with the American people about the long-term solvency of Social Security and the ways we can address the shortfall. Obama will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike. And he does not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security. Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.

That COMMITS TO NOTHING!!!! 99% is bullshit. Even the bit he says he going to do, that is raise the level he doesn't say to where!!! It's a non statement and just an example of many.

It is largely devoid of metrics which can be measured and held to.

I mean the next part of the plan:

quote:

Strengthen Retirement Savings Reform Corporate Bankruptcy Laws to Protect Workers and Retirees: Current bankruptcy laws protect banks before workers. Obama will protect pensions by putting promises to workers higher on the list of debts that companies cannot shed; ensuring that the bankruptcy courts do not demand more sacrifice from workers than executives; telling companies that they cannot issue executive bonuses while cutting worker pensions; increasing the amount of unpaid wages and benefits workers can claim in court; and limiting the circumstances under which retiree benefits can be reduced.

None of that actually commits to anything. There is not a measurable promise in it.

I mean take this line it seems like a promise but what does it mean?

quote:

increasing the amount of unpaid wages and benefits workers can claim in court

which ones? how much? when will this be delivered? how will this be delivered?


EDIT:
I mean once you strip out all the emotive statements there isn't much left e.g.: "And he does not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the
retirement age." Actually consider he can't force pension funds not to raise the retirement age if the sums don't add up it just looks like a lot of shit. And what is this believe why not "he commits to"?

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish But all this is soooooooooooo unspecific! I've tried reading the plan: That COMMITS TO NOTHING!!!! 99% is bullshit. Even the bit he says he going to do, that is raise the level he doesn't say to where!!! It's a non statement and just an example of many. It is largely devoid of metrics which can be measured and held to. I mean the next part of the plan: None of that actually commits to anything. There is not a measurable promise in it. I mean take this line it seems like a promise but what does it mean? which ones? how much? when will this be delivered? how will this be delivered?

Obama can't give "metrics" to be measured because Congress makes the laws, not the president. Obama can send legislation to Congress, but that doesn't mean Congress will enact the legislation. The president's job is mainly to enforce the laws of Congress. At least we know what Obama wants to do. Unfortunately he can't tell you what he will do EXACTLY, because as I said, powers of legislation lay with Congress.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish But all this is soooooooooooo unspecific! I've tried reading the plan: That COMMITS TO NOTHING!!!! 99% is bullshit. Even the bit he says he going to do, that is raise the level he doesn't say to where!!! It's a non statement and just an example of many. It is largely devoid of metrics which can be measured and held to. I mean the next part of the plan: None of that actually commits to anything. There is not a measurable promise in it. I mean take this line it seems like a promise but what does it mean? which ones? how much? when will this be delivered? how will this be delivered? EDIT: I mean once you strip out all the emotive statements there isn't much left e.g.: "And he does not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age." Actually consider he can't force pension funds not to raise the retirement age if the sums don't add up it just looks like a lot of shit. And what is this believe why not "he commits to"?

Thats as specific as it gets when outlining policy in a presidential campaign...nothing new.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Actually there has been commitments to actual policy. Here is one.. It's the different between continuing the policies of the worst president in United States history or changing the government. I choose to change our government.

There is a large spiel that drolls on and on with emotive crap talks of ideas but commits (timescales, deliverables anything; aside from no permanent bases, how long before they are permanent?) to nothing as far as I could deduce from the time I spent watching it.

Some cursory research found this though:

>Words one thing, Actions another.<

Well that's strange. Here is the sort of thing we get:

quote:

We will reform business rates with the introduction of a Small Business Bonus. Businesses with a rateable value of �8,000 or less will no longer pay business rates. Those with a rateable value of between �8,001 and �10,000 will be entitled to a 50% business rate relief; and businesses with a rateable value of between �10,001 and �15,000 will be entitled to a relief of 25%.

Or 1000 more police etc etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Well that's strange. Here is the sort of thing we get: Or 1000 more police etc etc.

I don't know how it works in Scotland, but if Obama or McCain were to make such specific promises, that may be fine, great. But if Congress refuses to enact the legislation, the promise is failed, even if they tried. I don't think either politician wants to take that risk.

Well suppose that might be the way it works there. But just in general seems wishy washy to me.

I mean is there anything these that you say "actually don't agree with that"? Aside from possibly the commitment to leaving Iraq.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.