Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on July 05, 2008, 12:32:59 AM
-
Condoleezza Rice Says She's `Proud' of Decision to Invade Iraq
By Janine Zacharia
July 3 (Bloomberg) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she's ``proud'' of the U.S. decision to wage the Iraq war and insisted that the world is not more dangerous than it was when George W. Bush took office.
``We're now beginning to see that perhaps it's not so popular to be a suicide bomber. We're beginning to see that perhaps people are questioning whether Osama Bin Laden ought to really be the face of Islam,'' Rice, 53, said in an interview to be broadcast this weekend on Bloomberg Television's ``Conversations with Judy Woodruff.''
``And I am proud of the decision of this administration to overthrow Saddam Hussein,'' said Rice, who was Bush's national security adviser at the time of the March 2003 invasion. As of yesterday, 4,107 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq and more than 30,000 were wounded. She said the Iraq war has been ``tougher than any of us really dreamed.''
Rice, who backs the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Arizona Senator John McCain, said she ``thought it was great'' when the Democratic race came down to a woman and a black man. ``I didn't think it was surprising,'' she said.
People abroad are ``fascinated'' by Illinois Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, Rice added when asked what effect Obama's candidacy is having around the world.
``But I'll tell you something. Ultimately, whoever is elected president of the United States will represent the United States, not as a black president or as a woman president or as a black secretary of state or as a woman secretary of state, but the United States of America,'' Rice said.
. . .
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aIefxPxr_Gw8&refer=worldwide
-
::)
-
well, we do have what Bush hopes will now be 58 permanent bases. And our fingers all over the oil management, in DOLLARS!
It's like a new Saudi Arabia, really. This was the PNAC goal of this administration, and they have accomplished it, maginificently. The defense spending was high, we have new bases and oil infrastructure in Arabia. We have Saudi Arabia II. This was their plan, and they did it. The Bush Presidency was a success. All our gossip about approval ratings, etc matters naught in the bigger scheme of things.
-
Condoleezza Rice Says She's `Proud' of Decision to Invade Iraq
``And I am proud of the decision of this administration to overthrow Saddam Hussein,'' said Rice, who was Bush's national security adviser at the time of the March 2003 invasion. As of yesterday, 4,107 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq and more than 30,000 were wounded. She said the Iraq war has been ``tougher than any of us really dreamed.''
. . .
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aIefxPxr_Gw8&refer=worldwide
The Army released it assesment of the invasion and more importantly the Occupation last week and seems that the Bush administration was totally unprepared for what to do after the initial invasion. Here's what you get when you have a "FAITH BASED" Commander in Chief:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/washington/29army.html?partner=rssnyt
“The Army, as the service primarily responsible for ground operations, should have insisted on better Phase IV planning and preparations through its voice on the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” the study noted. “The military means employed were sufficient to destroy the Saddam regime; they were not sufficient to replace it with the type of nation-state the United States wished to see in its place.”
The report focuses on the 18 months after President Bush’s May 2003 announcement that major combat operations in Iraq were over. It was a period when the Army took on unanticipated occupation duties
A big problem, the study says, was the lack of detailed plans before the war for the postwar phase, a deficiency that reflected the general optimism in the White House and in the Pentagon, led by then-Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, about Iraq’s future, and an assumption that civilian agencies would assume much of the burden.
“I can remember asking the question during our war gaming and the development of our plan, ‘O.K., we are in Baghdad, what next?’ No real good answers came forth,” Col. Thomas G. Torrance, the commander of the Third Infantry Division’s artillery, told Army historians
A fundamental assumption that hobbled the military’s planning was that Iraq’s ministries and institutions would continue to function after Mr. Hussein’s government was toppled.
L. Paul Bremer III, who replaced Jay Garner, the retired lieutenant general, as the chief civilian administrator in Iraq, issued decrees to disband the Iraqi Army and ban thousands of former Baath Party members from working for the government, orders that the study asserts caught American field commanders “off guard” and, in their view, “created a pool of disaffected and unemployed Sunni Arabs” that the insurgency could draw on.
Some of General Franks’s moves also appeared divorced from the growing problems in Iraq. Before the fall of Baghdad, Col. Kevin Benson, a planner at the land war command, developed a plan that called for using about 300,000 soldiers to secure postwar Iraq, about twice as many as were deployed.[/b]
But that was not what General Franks and the Bush administration had in mind. In an April 16 visit to Baghdad,
“In line with the prewar planning and general euphoria at the rapid crumbling of the Saddam regime, Franks continued to plan for a very limited role for U.S. ground forces in Iraq,” the report says.
The next month, General Franks directed General McKiernan, then the senior officer in Baghdad, to leave Iraq, along with the staff of his land war command, which had helped plan the invasion and had overseen the push to Baghdad.
A new headquarters would be established to command the military forces in Iraq and was to be led by Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez. He had led the First Armored Division into Iraq before being promoted and picked to succeed General Wallace as the head of the Army’s V Corps, which was to serve as the nucleus of the newly established command.
When Gen. Jack Keane, the vice chief of staff of the Army, learned of the move, he was upset. General Keane had helped General McKiernan assemble his headquarters, which had long been focused on Iraq and had more high-ranking officers than V Corps, which had been deployed from Europe. General Keane assumed that General McKiernan’s headquarters would oversee what was fast becoming a troubled occupation.
“I think we did not put the best experienced headquarters that we had in charge of that operation,” General Keane said in an interview with Army historians. “It took us months, six or seven or eight months, to get some semblance of a headquarters together so Sanchez could at least begin to function effectively.”
General Keane told the historians that he raised his concerns at the time with Lt. Gen. John P. Abizaid, who had been picked to succeed General Franks as the head of Central Command.
“I said, ‘Jesus Christ, John, this is a recipe for disaster,’ ” General Keane told Army historians. “I was upset about it to say the least, but the decision had been made and it was a done deal.”
-
Bush admits he never consulted Donal Rummy, Sec of Defense, before ordering the Iraq invasion.
Bush also admits he did consult God greatly.
-
Condoleezza Rice Says She's `Proud' of Decision to Invade Iraq
By Janine Zacharia
July 3 (Bloomberg) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she's ``proud'' of the U.S. decision to wage the Iraq war and insisted that the world is not more dangerous than it was when George W. Bush took office.
ROTFLMAO
-
She's right about the world being a safer place since Dubya took office. Saddam and his sons are dead. North Korea has caved. Iran is trying to prove it isn't developing nuclear weapons. Libya fell in line. Afghanistan no longer plays host to Al Qaeda.
-
She's right about the world being a safer place since Dubya took office. Saddam and his sons are dead. North Korea has caved. Iran is trying to prove it isn't developing nuclear weapons. Libya fell in line. Afghanistan no longer plays host to Al Qaeda.
We are in a war. American soldiers are dying everyday, terrorists attacks increased, we live under the thread of terrorists attacks. Iran will develop nuclear weapons, it's only a matter of time. Saddam was never a threat.
I wouldn't call it safer, I'd call it potentially more dangerous.......since ASS-HAT took over.
-
We are in a war. American soldiers are dying everyday, terrorists attacks increased, we live under the thread of terrorists attacks. Iran will develop nuclear weapons, it's only a matter of time. Saddam was never a threat.
I wouldn't call it safer, I'd call it potentially more dangerous.......since ASS-HAT took over.
Definitely safer. No more 911s, plus everything else I said is pretty much undisputed.
-
Definitely safer. No more 911s, plus everything else I said is pretty much undisputed.
Yes, what you said is true. But they don't mean much in relation to the world being safer. Iraq is a more dangerous place since Saddam was removed. Iran is now a bigger threat to our interests than before Iraq. Afghanistan is not fully stable. We are near over extended and our general question whether or not we can adequately respond to another major conflict. Russia and China are lining up to profit from any of our unsolved messes.
Also, N. Korea will be a problem again soon. At some point the cookies we are giving the mice will either run out or lose their effect. About the only thing significant in your statements are on Libya. But that can argued that they were pretty much held impotent before BUSH.
Fact is, the world is far more dangerous now than it was pre BUSH. Not that this is all BUSH's fault aside from the wrong decision to invade Iraq with too few troops and a pipe dream of a after war plan that's taken us 5 years to this point after "mission accomplished" in 3 weeks.
-
Yes, what you said is true. But they don't mean much in relation to the world being safer. Iraq is a more dangerous place since Saddam was removed. Iran is now a bigger threat to our interests than before Iraq. Afghanistan is not fully stable. We are near over extended and our general question whether or not we can adequately respond to another major conflict. Russia and China are lining up to profit from any of our unsolved messes.
Also, N. Korea will be a problem again soon. At some point the cookies we are giving the mice will either run out or lose their effect. About the only thing significant in your statements are on Libya. But that can argued that they were pretty much held impotent before BUSH.
Fact is, the world is far more dangerous now than it was pre BUSH. Not that this is all BUSH's fault aside from the wrong decision to invade Iraq with too few troops and a pipe dream of a after war plan that's taken us 5 years to this point after "mission accomplished" in 3 weeks.
I disagree. Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors, including Israel.
There is much greater scrutiny on Iran and I doubt they would be trying so hard to convince the world that they're not trying to develop nuclear weapons if we hadn't taken Saddam out.
Before 911 Afghanistan was hosting the terrorist group that attacked us on our soil. Not the case anymore. That's an improvement.
North Korea is less of a threat today than eight years ago.
The fact that the war has been grossly mismanaged is a separate issue and doesn't change the above facts.
-
I disagree. Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors, including Israel.
Iraq wasn't a threat to their neighbors. Sanctions left them unable to carry out and sustain any kind of offensive and the US would have never let them do anything. The idea Iraq was a threat was a popular mantra recited by politicians to feed the fears of the less informed.
There is much greater scrutiny on Iran and I doubt they would be trying so hard to convince the world that they're not trying to develop nuclear weapons if we hadn't taken Saddam out.
Doesn't matter what they are trying to convince anyone of. It's what they are capable of doing and what they are actually doing.
And why is there greater scrutiny? Maybe because they are more potentially dangerous.
Before 911 Afghanistan was hosting the terrorist group that attacked us on our soil. Not the case anymore. That's an improvement.
I agree. But RICE's comment wasn't about Afghanistan it was about Iraq. And AQ could have been so much farther put out if we hadn't took our eye off the ball to invade Iraq on false intel.
North Korea is less of a threat today than eight years ago.
8 years ago was there capability to launch missiles greater then it is today? They are a mouse with a cookie. Very temporary.
The fact that the war has been grossly mismanaged is a separate issue and doesn't change the above facts.
Had Iraq been manage properly the world would be a safer place starting with Iraq. It is the issue.
-
Iraq wasn't a threat to their neighbors. Sanctions left them unable to carry out and sustain any kind of offensive and the US would have never let them do anything. The idea Iraq was a threat was a popular mantra recited by politicians to feed the fears of the less informed.
Doesn't matter what they are trying to convince anyone of. It's what they are capable of doing and what they are actually doing.
And why is there greater scrutiny? Maybe because they are more potentially dangerous.
I agree. But RICE's comment wasn't about Afghanistan it was about Iraq. And AQ could have been so much farther put out if we hadn't took our eye off the ball to invade Iraq on false intel.
8 years ago was there capability to launch missiles greater then it is today? They are a mouse with a cookie. Very temporary.
Had Iraq been manage properly the world would be a safer place starting with Iraq. It is the issue.
Saddam subsidizing suicide bombers in Israel made him a threat to at least one of his neighbors. The fact we didn't know what he had or was trying to obtain and had demonstrated the capacity to use WMDs made him a threat to everyone else.
Are you one of those who downplayed the Iran threat when there was talk of war? If so, sounds inconsistent with your position that Iran is a major threat. I know how difficult it is for you to credit Bush for anything, but it really is hard to deny that Iran's posture has changed pretty dramatically in the past eight years.
Rice's comment was about the world: "the world is not more dangerous than it was when George W. Bush took office."
-
Rice's comment was about the world: "the world is not more dangerous than it was when George W. Bush took office."
Can anyone list the WORLD terrorist attacks from 1999, compared with 2007?
Let's see if there were more attacks/deaths under Clinton's last year, or Bush's last year.
My money is on WAY more now, but let's see the numbers. Anyone?
-
Saddam subsidizing suicide bombers in Israel made him a threat to at least one of his neighbors. The fact we didn't know what he had or was trying to obtain and had demonstrated the capacity to use WMDs made him a threat to everyone else.
Subsidizing suicide bombers somehow made them strap bombs to themselves and walk into a train station? He supported those against Israel, we support Israel. BFD. Not hardly something to go invade for considering many other countries have their hands dirty in similar ways and are probably far more of a threat. Let's take Lebanon. Are they a threat to their nieghbots too? Should we invade them too? How about Egypt? Syria? That's weak logic and disproportionate justification.
WMD's? Even if he had them what was he gping to do with them? why would he do something with WMD's? What could he hope to accomplish? Not a dam thing as one false move would have meant his removale from power which is the last thing he'd want or choose.
All of this makes him a non-threat. Except to those who refuse or have the inability to see the BIG picture.
Are you one of those who downplayed the Iran threat when there was talk of war? If so, sounds inconsistent with your position that Iran is a major threat. I know how difficult it is for you to credit Bush for anything, but it really is hard to deny that Iran's posture has changed pretty dramatically in the past eight years.
Iran is more of a threat now, ONLY because of what we have to lose from them capitalizing from our failures in Iraq, becoming the major power in the area, AND that there nuclear progression is inevitable. Had we not been in Iraq, we'd only be dealing with one of those issues.
Rice's comment was about the world: "the world is not more dangerous than it was when George W. Bush took office."
The world is far more Dangerous since BUSH took office. It's not all his fault, But the invasion of Iraq made it more dangerous.
Rice is only spewing the party mine. Or she's just delusional.
-
Subsidizing suicide bombers somehow made them strap bombs to themselves and walk into a train station? He supported those against Israel, we support Israel. BFD. Not hardly something to go invade for considering many other countries have their hands dirty in similar ways and are probably far more of a threat. Let's take Lebanon. Are they a threat to their nieghbots too? Should we invade them too? How about Egypt? Syria? That's weak logic and disproportionate justification.
WMD's? Even if he had them what was he gping to do with them? why would he do something with WMD's? What could he hope to accomplish? Not a dam thing as one false move would have meant his removale from power which is the last thing he'd want or choose.
All of this makes him a non-threat. Except to those who refuse or have the inability to see the BIG picture.
Iran is more of a threat now, ONLY because of what we have to lose from them capitalizing from our failures in Iraq, becoming the major power in the area, AND that there nuclear progression is inevitable. Had we not been in Iraq, we'd only be dealing with one of those issues.
The world is far more Dangerous since BUSH took office. It's not all his fault, But the invasion of Iraq made it more dangerous.
Rice is only spewing the party mine. Or she's just delusional.
Yes, I think the fact Saddam gave financial rewards to the families of suicide bombers gave the bombers an incentive to commit acts of terrorism resulting in the murder of innocent civilians. That has now stopped. I'm sure the people of Israel would not say "BFD" to that. And the issue on that point wasn't whether sponsoring terrorism justified the war; it was whether one of his neighbors (i.e., part of the world) is now safer. That's really undeniable.
Had we not invaded Iraq I believe Iran would have been much more aggressive in trying to obtain WMDs. The fact we rolled in and took Saddam out had to have a major impact on Iran. I don't think it's a coincidence at all that they are now trying to prove they're not developing WMDs.
I agree with Rice.
-
Yes, I think the fact Saddam gave financial rewards to the families of suicide bombers gave the bombers an incentive to commit acts of terrorism resulting in the murder of innocent civilians. That has now stopped. I'm sure the people of Israel would not say "BFD" to that. And the issue on that point wasn't whether sponsoring terrorism justified the war; it was whether one of his neighbors (i.e., part of the world) is now safer. That's really undeniable.
It's very deniable as Saddam wasn't doing anything. He was paying the FAMILIES. Not the terrorists, not the bombers. And it still stands that Saddam was not a threat to his neighbors as it wasn't practical or prudent for him to attack anything as it would mean his removable and death.
It is both illogical and a stupid reason to go to war.
Had we not invaded Iraq I believe Iran would have been much more aggressive in trying to obtain WMDs. The fact we rolled in and took Saddam out had to have a major impact on Iran. I don't think it's a coincidence at all that they are now trying to prove they're not developing WMDs.
So now we are justifying our invasion of Iraq with the idea they would be trying to obtain WMD's in the wake of the most incompetent intelligence assessment in history? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAH
ROTFLMAO...............a gain.
The fact we rolled in and took Saddam out had to have a major impact on Iran.
Yeah, they have had a the opportunity to supply the insurgency, get Iraq if we fail, and tied down our troops so we can't rightly invade them off of "BUSH's great intelligence assessments".
I don't think it's a coincidence at all that they are now trying to prove they're not developing WMDs.
You mean after everything that's been said? lol. When Inspectors get unfettered access to Iran and N. Korea then it's plausible. Until then. It's only words.
I agree with Rice.
The funny thing is, she HAS to say that. Not to, would be to invalidate BUSH's entire presidency. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It's very deniable as Saddam wasn't doing anything. He was paying the FAMILIES. Not the terrorists, not the bombers. And it still stands that Saddam was not a threat to his neighbors as it wasn't practical or prudent for him to attack anything as it would mean his removable and death.
It is both illogical and a stupid reason to go to war.
So now we are justifying our invasion of Iraq with the idea they would be trying to obtain WMD's in the wake of the most incompetent intelligence assessment in history? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAH
ROTFLMAO...............a gain.
Yeah, they have had a the opportunity to supply the insurgency, get Iraq if we fail, and tied down our troops so we can't rightly invade them off of "BUSH's great intelligence assessments".
You mean after everything that's been said? lol. When Inspectors get unfettered access to Iran and N. Korea then it's plausible. Until then. It's only words.
The funny thing is, she HAS to say that. Not to, would be to invalidate BUSH's entire presidency. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
To borrow your phrase: "you don't get it." :) He obviously couldn't give a financial reward to someone who was committing suicide, and the issue isn't whether this justified the war (although it is part of the analysis). It's whether the people of Israel are safer with Saddam gone. The answer is obvious.
I don't really feel like having yet another discussion about whether the war was justified. We've been down that road many times. We're not going to agree.
We are always operating somewhat in the dark when it comes to other countries’ internal operations. But the information we have to date (public information anyway) clearly shows Iran and N. Korea being much more cooperative today than eight years ago.
-
To borrow your phrase: "you don't get it." :) He obviously couldn't give a financial reward to someone who was committing suicide, and the issue isn't whether this justified the war (although it is part of the analysis). It's whether the people of Israel are safer with Saddam gone. The answer is obvious.
To borrow your phrase we just disagree. But we can agree that Israel isn't the "world" can't we?
Further more, it seems we are always in search of reasons to justify Iraq. It's sad that we can't use the reasons we originally went to war in the first place. It's ironic that now we have to have to cite things like "would have been much more aggressive in trying to obtain WMDs" to justify this war. I am very saddened that this what explaining 4000 US deaths, 20,000 maimed and wounded, 100,000 dead iraqis and trillions of dollars, has come to.
We are always operating somewhat in the dark when it comes to other countries’ internal operations. But the information we have to date (public information anyway) clearly shows Iran and N. Korea being much more cooperative today than eight years ago.
Only in the last few days after 5 years in Iraq. They will continue trying to become a player in the world power club. Public information means little.
-
stats... anyone?
I think I recall hearing a few months back that worldwide, terror attacks have RISEN since 2000 and are way higher now than in 2000. This would completely dispel what Rice says.
Anyone have stats?
-
It's whether the people of Israel are safer with Saddam gone. The answer is obvious.
I wonder........ was Saddam killing roughly 750 and wounding 4000+ Israelis a year?
-
stats... anyone?
I think I recall hearing a few months back that worldwide, terror attacks have RISEN since 2000 and are way higher now than in 2000. This would completely dispel what Rice says.
Anyone have stats?
Are you gonna make me list all the democrats that voted for the war and paste their statements saying Saddam was a threat again?
-
Rice's statement as i think about it again.............
ROTFLMAO
-
To borrow your phrase we just disagree. But we can agree that Israel isn't the "world" can't we?
Further more, it seems we are always in search of reasons to justify Iraq. It's sad that we can't use the reasons we originally went to war in the first place. It's ironic that now we have to have to cite things like "would have been much more aggressive in trying to obtain WMDs" to justify this war. I am very saddened that this what explaining 4000 US deaths, 20,000 maimed and wounded, 100,000 dead iraqis and trillions of dollars, has come to.
Only in the last few days after 5 years in Iraq. They will continue trying to become a player in the world power club. Public information means little.
Yes, we will have to agree to disagree.
Israel isn't the world, but Israel is safer with Saddam gone. Lybia, Iran, and and North Korea aren't the world either, but the world is a safer place if they don't have or try to develop WMDs.
Public information means little? What else are you relying on the form you opinion? You have friends in the CIA? :)
-
I wonder........ was Saddam killing roughly 750 and wounding 4000+ Israelis a year?
I don't know. What difference would that make?
-
Public information means little? What else are you relying on the form you opinion? You have friends in the CIA? :)
:) Some things are just a no-brainer.
I don't know. What difference would that make?
What difference does 750 dead and 4000 wouldn't make to the world being safer? Much less Israel?
Israel isn't the world, but Israel is safer with Saddam gone. Lybia, Iran, and and North Korea aren't the world either, but the world is a safer place if they don't have or try to develop WMDs.
Do you believe Iran and N. Korea aren't trying to develop nuclear weapons?
-
So we have:
More death in and from Iraq.
Iran a bigger player and a threat to the USA
War potentially brewing with IRan
N Korea conducting missile tests and NOt allowing inspectors
Iran not allowing inspectors
Both they both publicly state they aren't pursuing nuclear weapons
and the largest terrorist strike on US soil
and I'm will to bet terrorist attacks are up in the aftermath of the Iraq war.
BUT! Saddam is no longer giving money to the widowed families of suicide bombers so the world must be safer!
-
:) Some things are just a no-brainer.
What difference does 750 dead and 4000 wouldn't make to the world being safer? Much less Israel?
Do you believe Iran and N. Korea aren't trying to develop nuclear weapons?
Yes, some things are a no brainer. :)
You asked the following question: "was Saddam killing roughly 750 and wounding 4000+ Israelis a year?" I don't know how many deaths in Israel Saddam was responsible for, but what difference does that make?
I don't know if Iran and North Korea are trying to develop nuclear weapons. If I had to guess, I'd say "yes," covertly. What we've done is make it much harder for them to do so.
-
Yes, some things are a no brainer. :)
You asked the following question: "was Saddam killing roughly 750 and wounding 4000+ Israelis a year?" I don't know how many deaths in Israel Saddam was responsible for, but what difference does that make?
It makes a big difference. 750 & 4000/year wasn't happening before he was removed. And the suicide bombings continued if not increase after his death. On to of all of that, he wasn't responsible for the bombings. he didn't decide, he didn'y direct, he only gave money to the widowed families.
I don't know if Iran and North Korea are trying to develop nuclear weapons. If I had to guess, I'd say "yes," covertly. What we've done is make it much harder for them to do so.
Harder or easier makes no difference if they make em. If we really wanted to make "harder" be a difference then inspectors coud do that. Is that happening? No.
So, N. Korea and Iran's alleged public capitulant behaviors mean little if you agree they are still pursuing nukes covertly.
Going into Iraq has created more danger for us (750-4000/year), more danger than Israel faced by Saddam giving widowed families money. If Israel were losing 750-4000/year they'd have invaded Lebanon completely already after 1 month of "attacks" of that magnitude.
So we removed a threat to israel by not giving widow families money and replaced it with 750-4000/year to the USA.
Iran has been outwardly threatening Israel since.
Afghanistan is better off the way it is to the USA, but AQ still has a strong presence there.
Going back to the original "undisputed statements"
They mean little, maybe nothing in terms of supporting Rice's delusional idea that the BUSH presidency has made the world a safer place.
again......ROTFLMAO at her.
-
It makes a big difference. 750 & 4000/year wasn't happening before he was removed. And the suicide bombings continued if not increase after his death. On to of all of that, he wasn't responsible for the bombings. he didn't decide, he didn'y direct, he only gave money to the widowed families.
Harder or easier makes no difference if they make em. If we really wanted to make "harder" be a difference then inspectors coud do that. Is that happening? No.
So, N. Korea and Iran's alleged public capitulant behaviors mean little if you agree they are still pursuing nukes covertly.
Going into Iraq has created more danger for us (750-4000/year), more danger than Israel faced by Saddam giving widowed families money. If Israel were losing 750-4000/year they'd have invaded Lebanon completely already after 1 month of "attacks" of that magnitude.
So we removed a threat to israel by not giving widow families money and replaced it with 750-4000/year to the USA.
Iran has been outwardly threatening Israel since.
Afghanistan is better off the way it is to the USA, but AQ still has a strong presence there.
Going back to the original "undisputed statements"
They mean little, maybe nothing in terms of supporting Rice's delusional idea that the BUSH presidency has made the world a safer place.
again......ROTFLMAO at her.
We didn't replace the murders of innocent civilians in Israel with combat deaths in the war. I never do the simplistic body count analysis. It never makes any sense.
Rather than just repeat what I've already said, let's say you think the world is a more dangerous place today than eight years ago and I believe it's a safer place.
-
We didn't replace the murders of innocent civilians in Israel with combat deaths in the war. I never do the simplistic body count analysis. It never makes any sense.
You point was, Israel is a safer place because Saddam was removed. The reasoning for this was that Saddam was paying widowed families of suicide bombers.
We removed Saddam (in the interest of making the world a safer place becuase he had WMD's) and the suicide bombers didn't decrease, and the world became a more dangerous place to us as we started losing 750/4000 per year. And on top of all of that Iran started making some serious threats to Israel and started supplying our enemy, the ones who mostly responsible for the 750/4000 per year.
Sorry, that point of yours goes nowhere.
Rather than just repeat what I've already said, let's say you think the world is a more dangerous place today than eight years ago and I believe it's a safer place.
That's why we are having this discussion. ;)
-
You point was, Israel is a safer place because Saddam was removed. The reasoning for this was that Saddam was paying widowed families of suicide bombers.
We removed Saddam (in the interest of making the world a safer place becuase he had WMD's) and the suicide bombers didn't decrease, and the world became a more dangerous place to us as we started losing 750/4000 per year. And on top of all of that Iran started making some serious threats to Israel and started supplying our enemy, the ones who mostly responsible for the 750/4000 per year.
Sorry, that point of yours goes nowhere.
That's why we are having this discussion. ;)
My point was Saddam was sponsoring terrorism in Israel, which facilitated the deaths of innocent men, women, and children. His lack of sponsorship has made Israel a safer place. You disagree and believe we “replaced” saved lives in Israel with American war dead and wounded. That makes no sense.
I also mentioned Afghanistan hosting Al Qaeda, Lybia, North Korea, and Iran. You believe there has been no improvement with those countries. I disagree.
It really doesn't matter to me if you think my point goes nowhere. I'm fairly comfortable with my position. And besides, Condi Rice agrees with me. :)
But this horse is about dead . . . .
-
My point was Saddam was sponsoring terrorism in Israel, which facilitated the deaths of innocent men, women, and children. His lack of sponsorship has made Israel a safer place. You disagree and believe we “replaced” saved lives in Israel with American war dead and wounded. That makes no sense.
Getting rid of one threat that results in a greater threat with more kills? Makes all the sense in the world even if you just use basic math.
I also mentioned Afghanistan hosting Al Qaeda, Lybia, North Korea, and Iran. You believe there has been no improvement with those countries. I disagree.
Libya = yes
Afghanistan = yes, but qualified.
N. Korea & Iran, you believe that they are likely covertly pursuing nukes, but because of their public stance they less a threat? That makes no sense.
It really doesn't matter to me if you think my point goes nowhere. I'm fairly comfortable with my position. And besides, Condi Rice agrees with me.
As it should, because Condi's statements are designed to appeal to BUSH supporters. After all, she works for him. ;)
But this horse is about dead . . . .
It's dead becuase your postiion has been shown to be quite weak. Therefore it's best for you to declare it's passing. ;)
-
Getting rid of one threat that results in a greater threat with more kills? Makes all the sense in the world even if you just use basic math.
Libya = yes
Afghanistan = yes, but qualified.
N. Korea & Iran, you believe that they are likely covertly pursuing nukes, but because of their public stance they less a threat? That makes no sense.
As it should, because Condi's statements are designed to appeal to BUSH supporters. After all, she works for him. ;)
It's dead becuase your postiion has been shown to be quite weak. Therefore it's best for you to declare it's passing. ;)
I never use basic math when talking about dead people. That's what makes no sense to me.
Makes perfect sense to me that making it harder for dangerous countries to obtain WMDs makes us safer. I really can't even debate that one. It's too obvious.
IMO, an exchange becomes a dead horse when both sides start repeating the same thing. Happens with Decker and me a lot. :)
Plus I don’t need the last word. If I have nothing to add other than what I’ve already said, then I’ll usually just shut up.
-
The government used to publish a report every year called Patterns on Global Terrorism which listed very detailed info the acts of terrorism from the prior year. Some may recall that in the 2003 report it was alleged that the State Department "cooked the books" to show a decline in terroris when in fact it was at the highest level yet (at that time). The next year they changed the name to Country Reports on Terrorism and didn't include any numbers at all
So, how exactly can we measure whether the The War on Terror (aka TWAT) is a success?
How about the first front in TWAT? Last month we had the most casualties in Afghanistan since the war started. There was a massive jail break about a month ago and then a few days later stories of the Taliban taking over cities.
Pakistan actually has nuclear weapons, their government is a cluster fuck and they seem to allow al queda to have a safe haven in certain areas.
So far Iran has been the big winner in TWAT. We were kind enough to take out their main enemy and they got to just sit back and watch.
When Bush goes to Iraq he has to fly in during the middle of the nights with all the lights turned off on the plane.
When the nutty prez of Iran visits he shows up in broad daylight and it met with a red carpet and a band.
the old report
Patterns on Global Terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_of_Global_Terrorism
the new Bush State Department Report - sans those pesky numbers
Country Reports on Terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_Reports_on_Terrorism
You should really quit using facts. It's doesn't become the drone in you.
-
whoops - I meant to modify and I accidently deleted
------
The government used to publish a report every year called Patterns on Global Terrorism which listed very detailed info the acts of terrorism from the prior year. Some may recall that in the 2003 report it was alleged that the State Department "cooked the books" to show a decline in terroris when in fact it was at the highest level yet (at that time). The next year they changed the name to Country Reports on Terrorism and didn't include any numbers at all
So, how exactly can we measure whether the The War Against Terror (aka TWAT) is a success?
How about the first front in TWAT? Last month we had the most casualties in Afghanistan since the war started. There was a massive jail break about a month ago and then a few days later stories of the Taliban taking over cities.
Pakistan actually has nuclear weapons, their government is a cluster fuck and they seem to allow al queda to have a safe haven in certain areas.
So far Iran has been the big winner in TWAT. We were kind enough to take out their main enemy and they got to just sit back and watch.
When Bush goes to Iraq he has to fly in during the middle of the nights with all the lights turned off on the plane.
When the nutty prez of Iran visits he shows up in broad daylight and it met with a red carpet and a band.
the old report
Patterns on Global Terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_of_Global_Terrorism
the new Bush State Department Report - sans those pesky numbers
Country Reports on Terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_Reports_on_Terrorism
-
I never use basic math when talking about dead people. That's what makes no sense to me.
So seeing that less people died as a result of a course of action versus much more people dying as a result of a related course of action.
Good point. That way you don't have to deal with any accountability.
Makes perfect sense to me that making it harder for dangerous countries to obtain WMDs makes us safer. I really can't even debate that one. It's too obvious.
2 issues that make that point moot.
1. If making it harder prevents them from obtaining the inevitable then it would be significant.
2. Anything outside of direct unfettered access by inspectors makes anything you wold use to support their cooperation/submission completely irrelevant.
-
So seeing that less people died as a result of a course of action versus much more people dying as a result of a related course of action.
Good point. That way you don't have to deal with any accountability.
2 issues that make that point moot.
1. If making it harder prevents them from obtaining the inevitable then it would be significant.
2. Anything outside of direct unfettered access by inspectors makes anything you wold use to support their cooperation/submission completely irrelevant.
Regarding Iran and North Korea, I completely disagree. I view this similarly to law enforcement efforts. Putting cops on the streets doesn't prevent criminals from breaking the law, but it makes it more difficult for them to do so, which helps make the streets safer. Using your analysis, we would have to completely wipe out crime to consider the streets safer.
We won't know if we have completely prevented Iran from developing WMDs, but our efforts to stop them, or at least slow them down, makes it safer for everyone.
-
She's right about the world being a safer place since Dubya took office. Saddam and his sons are dead. North Korea has caved. Iran is trying to prove it isn't developing nuclear weapons. Libya fell in line. Afghanistan no longer plays host to Al Qaeda.
LOL... NOT.... stats show increases in the numbers of radical groups and number of attacks. I don't know what you think is safer about it.
-
LOL... NOT.... stats show increases in the numbers of radical groups and number of attacks. I don't know what you think is safer about it.
Go back and review my comments in the thread. I don’t expect you to agree, but my rationale is explained (more than once).
Increased number of radical groups and increased attacks, if true, are only part of the analysis.
-
Regarding Iran and North Korea, I completely disagree. I view this similarly to law enforcement efforts. Putting cops on the streets doesn't prevent criminals from breaking the law, but it makes it more difficult for them to do so, which helps make the streets safer. Using your analysis, we would have to completely wipe out crime to consider the streets safer.
We won't know if we have completely prevented Iran from developing WMDs, but our efforts to stop them, or at least slow them down, makes it safer for everyone.
How do you know what we've done is even slowing them down or making it more difficult? do you work for the CIA? :)
-
Go back and review my comments in the thread. I don’t expect you to agree, but my rationale is explained (more than once).
Increased number of radical groups and increased attacks, if true, are only part of the analysis.
It seems to me that the part that causes death and violence are the biggest part of any analysis if you are looking to see if the world is safer.
Unless of course you just want to limit your spectrum like not doing simplistic body counts so you can make your point make sense.
Yeah, the park down the street is much safer since BUSH so the world is safer also. :)
-
How do you know what we've done is even slowing them down or making it more difficult? do you work for the CIA? :)
Nah. I read the news. :)
-
It seems to me that the part that causes death and violence are the biggest part of any analysis if you are looking to see if the world is safer.
Unless of course you just want to limit your spectrum like not doing simplistic body counts so you can make your point make sense.
Yeah, the park down the street is much safer since BUSH so the world is safer also. :)
The threat of use of nuclear weapons is about as big of a threat as you can get.
Bush has very little to do with local policing, but we are all safer because of the war on terror. Afghanistan no longer serves as an unencumbered host for terrorists planning attacks on American soil.
-
the old report
Patterns on Global Terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_of_Global_Terrorism
the new Bush State Department Report - sans those pesky numbers
Country Reports on Terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_Reports_on_Terrorism
The over lying aspect of this report is that most attacks are in side of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Where the attacks are used as a method of war.
For example A car bomb going off at a police station is both a terrorist attack and a military strike, depending on which side you are on.
There have only been a few major attacks in the US.
Oklahoma City.
the WTC bombing
9-11.
In Europe,
Basque attacks
Spanish train bombing
UK attack
Moscow
The major Al Qaeda attacks on countries outside of the Muslim Crescent has dissipated since Al Qaeda decided to fight the US and coalition in Iraq.
This has quite a bit to do with Bush's strategies including your hated patriot act and interrogation's at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
-
The over lying aspect of this report is that most attacks are in side of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Where the attacks are used as a method of war.
For example A car bomb going off at a police station is both a terrorist attack and a military strike, depending on which side you are on.
There have only been a few major attacks in the US.
Oklahoma City.
the WTC bombing
9-11.
In Europe,
Basque attacks
Spanish train bombing
UK attack
Moscow
The major Al Qaeda attacks on countries outside of the Muslim Crescent has dissipated since Al Qaeda decided to fight the US and coalition in Iraq.
This has quite a bit to do with Bush's strategies including your hated patriot act and interrogation's at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
Don't forget Pakistan - you know the place where we allow Al Queda to hide
btw - I was with you all the way until your last sentence.
There's absolutely no proof to support your last statement
-
More Suicide Bombers, New Tactics, More Victims
U.S. Has Bad News on Terror War
By JONATHAN KARL and KIRIT RADIA
WASHINGTON, April 30, 2008—
Are we winning? Looking at the just-released State Department report on terrorism, the answer appears to be "no."
The number of terror victims killed or injured is on the rise worldwide, according to the report, and al Qaeda's senior leadership has restored some of its control over the terror group's operations, and increased its mobility and ability to plan attacks.
Most dramatically, there was a 50 percent increase worldwide in suicide bombings last year. All told, 66,995 people were killed or wounded in terror attacks in 2007 (up from 59,327 in 2006 and 39,469 in 2005).
Some key figures:
- Iraq was the country most heavily hit by suicide bombings, accounting for 45 percent of the attacks and 60 percent of the victims.
- The number of attacks in Pakistan doubled, and injuries and fatalities in Pakistan quadrupled.
- Well over 50 percent of those killed or injured in terror attacks were Muslims.
- 2,400 children were killed or injured in 2007 by suicide attacks, an increase of 25 percent.
- Algeria and Thailand also saw big increases in the number of terror victims.
"Around the globe people are getting increasingly efficient at killing other people," said Russ Travers of the National Counterterrorism Center, which compiled the data for the report. One factor contributing the increased lethality of terror attacks: increased use of backpacks by suicide bombers that are easier to sneak into crowded areas.
The report says al Qaeda "and associated networks" remain "the greatest threat to the United States and its partners." That threat increased last year because al Qaeda's senior leaders had "greater mobility and ability to conduct training and operational planning, particularly that targeting Western Europe and the United States."
Officials also blame al Qaeda's ability to operate in Pakistan's lawless tribal regions has allowed the terror network to reconstitute itself and plan attacks elsewhere.
Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, restored some of his control over al Qaeda last year. Bin Laden remained the group's "ideological figurehead," but "Zawahiri has emerged as AQ's strategic and operational planner," according to the report.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4756556
Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures
-
I know its how I feel.
Tracking terrorism or other effects of these policies is impossible.
I do know that the integrations have led to quite a bit of information being handed to the US government, if this has reduced attacks its hard to know. Especially since the government, with good reason, will not let us know.
Pakistan will have a major US presence before Iran does, IMO, The tribal regions will have to be dealt with sooner then later.
-
I know its how I feel.
Tracking terrorism or other effects of these policies is impossible.
I do know that the integrations have led to quite a bit of information being handed to the US government, if this has reduced attacks its hard to know. Especially since the government, with good reason, will not let us know.
Pakistan will have a major US presence before Iran does, IMO, The tribal regions will have to be dealt with sooner then later.
I think some conflict with Pakistan (rather within their borders but not necessarily against the country) is inevitable. The only problem is, how many more fronts in TWAT can we open up until we button up the ones we already have?
-
I still have a significant amount of respect for Ms.Condoleezza Rice despite her saying how proud she is of the decision to invade Iraq as well as the rest of the middle east. Condoleeza Rice is probably one of the brightest and smartest minorities among all african-americans. I'm sure she has the BRAINS that most people from her ethnic background didn't have the talent to be born with.
I don't believe in disliking a public figure in the political arena only because of his or her beliefs in implementing policies that work or fail since second-guessing doesn't count in reality to change what has already happened in the first place.
-
I know its how I feel.
Tracking terrorism or other effects of these policies is impossible.
I do know that the integrations have led to quite a bit of information being handed to the US government, if this has reduced attacks its hard to know. Especially since the government, with good reason, will not let us know.
Pakistan will have a major US presence before Iran does, IMO, The tribal regions will have to be dealt with sooner then later.
This is the problem in Afghanistan....AQI really can't retreat and rebuild in Syria and Iran, they can go there in small numbers but neither country really wants armed foreign fighters roaming around. The tribal areas have no real Pakistani militray presence, the Taliban can regroup, rearm, and refinance themselves. AQI is broke so they are moving to Afghanistan to take up the fight. 10 years from now an FBI forensic accountant will write a really boring book detailing how we crushed AQI.
-
I still have a significant amount of respect for Ms.Condoleezza Rice despite her saying how proud she is of the decision to invade Iraq as well as the rest of the middle east. Condoleeza Rice is probably one of the brightest and smartest minorities among all african-americans. I'm sure she has the BRAINS that most people from her ethnic background didn't have the talent to be born with.
I don't believe in disliking a public figure in the political arena only because of his or her beliefs in implementing policies that work or fail since second-guessing doesn't count in reality to change what has already happened in the first place.
so what do you base your like or dislike of public figure upon if not their policies and actions? Granted, Rice was/is very weak and is not implementing her own policies but still by your standard, how should we judge our leaders if not their choices and actions?