From Iraq to Iran

[Nupe2]

Bush to troops: Mission accomplished
By Judy Keen, USA TODAY
DOHA, Qatar — President Bush ended his trip to Europe and the Middle East on Thursday reveling in the approving roar of troops at Camp As Sayliyah.

Linking victory in Iraq with the broader war on terrorism, Bush harked back to his visit to Ground Zero days after Sept. 11. When a rescue worker shouted at him then, "We can't hear you," Bush replied, "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon."

In his remarks here, Bush asked, "I have a question for you: Can you hear me now?" His audience erupted.

"America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished," he said. Despite growing doubts at home and abroad, he reiterated that troops would find weapons of mass destruction, which were his rationale for striking first at Iraq.

 

[ylexot]

Indeed, I remember a statement that the mission was accomplished! Which mission? If it was accomplished why are our sons and daughters still dying?

Main Entry: state·ment
Pronunciation: 'stAt-m&nt
Function: noun
1 : something stated : as a : a single declaration or remark : ASSERTION b : a report of facts or opinions

A banner is not a statement. Now, if you were referring to the other quote that I was not familiar with,

"America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished," he said.

Why would you ask which mission? It's right there at the beginning: "America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people" Was that mission not accomplished? Is Saddam still in power? Are the Iraqi people not free?

 

[SamSpade]

I guess the crew of the Abraham Lincoln need to go BACK to Iraq - their mission WASN'T accomplished. I have no idea what they'd do, steaming around in the Persian Gulf, but apparently everyone has this idea that the banner they put up behind Bush just before they all went home, was in error.

 

[Nupe2]

Main Entry: state·ment
Pronunciation: 'stAt-m&nt
Function: noun
1 : something stated : as a : a single declaration or remark : ASSERTION b : a report of facts or opinions

A banner is not a statement. Now, if you were referring to the other quote that I was not familiar with,
Why would you ask which mission? It's right there at the beginning: "America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people" Was that mission not accomplished? Is Saddam still in power? Are the Iraqi people not free?

Your comment regarding my previous declaration or remark is indeed accurate. I stand corrected. Feel better?

No, Saddam is no longer in power (ignoring the Bathhists involved in the "insurgency"). However, wasn't the grave threat the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION? The very same weapons that have now disappeared into thin air? Maybe Osama has them, remember him?

As far as the Iraqi people being free, I'm on the fence on that one. The situation on the ground is pretty dicey for the average Iraqi these days. I'm probably wrong about that too though.

Eightball: "Personally, I think, uh... they don't really want to be involved in this war. You know, I mean... they sort of took away our freedom and gave it to the, to the gookers, you know. But they don't want it. They'd rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards."

 

[2ndAmendment]

...
The U.S. has attacked Iraq to either find "Weapons of Mass Destruction," "free the Iraqi people," "bring democracy to the middle east," ...

How about all of the above?

 

[Ken King]

Your comment regarding my previous declaration or remark is indeed accurate. I stand corrected. Feel better?

No, Saddam is no longer in power (ignoring the Bathhists involved in the "insurgency"). However, wasn't the grave threat the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION? The very same weapons that have now disappeared into thin air? Maybe Osama has them, remember him?

As far as the Iraqi people being free, I'm on the fence on that one. The situation on the ground is pretty dicey for the average Iraqi these days. I'm probably wrong about that too though.

Eightball: "Personally, I think, uh... they don't really want to be involved in this war. You know, I mean... they sort of took away our freedom and gave it to the, to the gookers, you know. But they don't want it. They'd rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards."

Have you ever bothered to read the Iraq War Resolution to find all the reasons we went there?

 

[Nupe2]

How about all of the above?

1. Still looking?
2. And our children should die for this because...
3. Isn't it up to the people of a sovereign nature to determine their own
form of Government?

 

[2ndAmendment]

... I think we are really fighting a second Crusade. Do you think this country is up to the task? ...

You are a bit behind the times. We can't fight the Second Crusade since it was fought in 1147. The Ninth Crusade was fought in 1271. I think at best we would be fighting the Tenth Crusade.

 

[itsbob]

Bush to troops: Mission accomplished
By Judy Keen, USA TODAY
DOHA, Qatar — President Bush ended his trip to Europe and the Middle East on Thursday reveling in the approving roar of troops at Camp As Sayliyah.

Linking victory in Iraq with the broader war on terrorism, Bush harked back to his visit to Ground Zero days after Sept. 11. When a rescue worker shouted at him then, "We can't hear you," Bush replied, "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon."

In his remarks here, Bush asked, "I have a question for you: Can you hear me now?" His audience erupted.

"America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished," he said. Despite growing doubts at home and abroad, he reiterated that troops would find weapons of mass destruction, which were his rationale for striking first at Iraq.

Go back in time.. after peace was declared after WWII with the Germans and Japanese, and we were the victors, how many more allied troops were killed? How many times were we attacked, how many improvised bombs, terrorists attacks (and OH BY THE WAY.. those were ongoing well into the 80's).. so YES you win the war, now you have to fight the peace.

No matter who wins there is always resistance, there are always diehards that refuse to surrender or admit defeat (last Japanese forward lookout surrendered in the Phillipines in 1974).

So yes, we CAN say we won the war, we decimated his Army, Navy, and Air Force, we DID accomplish the mission. This in and of itself is an entirely different mission.

One thing we didn't consider in Victory was how fast it would happen, how easy his forces would roll over and quit. In turn we didn't kill as many of them as we would have thought, nor did they stand and fight like we thought they would (They were not as fanatical as first thought) so a lot of dissenters survived.

I still like the idea of the insurgents and terrorists fighting it out in Iraq then in downtown DC or Boston..

 

[Nupe2]

Have you ever bothered to read the Iraq War Resolution to find all the reasons we went there?

I can see I'm all alone on this one. Yes I have. I saw the reasons and I would argue that you could use the same rationale to attack other "Axis" countries or even our so-called Allies (e.g., the Saudis).

"Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40);"

I am not alone in asking where was the threat from Iraq? Why not North Korea why not China? Come on, this was about more than the reasons stated in the resolution. This decision was made before Bush/Chaney (the $30 million man) declared war on Iraq. For example:

• Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995-2000.
• Halliburton's board of directors voted to give Cheney a $20 million retirement package when he resigned, in addition to providing him with a massive salary and a bonus for just eight months of work in 2000.
• Following his departure from Halliburton, Cheney retained possession of 433,333 options of Halliburton stock.
• Although Cheney insisted that he severed his financial ties to Halliburton, the Congressional Research Service recently released a report saying that federal ethics laws consider both Cheney's deferred compensation and his stock options as lingering financial interest in the company.

Halliburton's Contract with the Federal Government

• The Pentagon knew it would need help after the war rebuilding Iraqi oil fields and putting out oil field fires. Rather than following normal procedure and asking companies to bid on the job, the Pentagon turned the entire project over to Cheney's former firm, Halliburton. The Army Corps of Engineers said that Halliburton's compensation for rejuvenating Iraq's oil industry could be up to $7 billion. In postwar Iraq, Halliburton is the largest private contractor, with potential deals totaling over $11 billion.

• Last September, Cheney said that he did not influence the decision to award Halliburton a no-bid contract: "I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the [Army] Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal
government."

Since then, we have learned that:

Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, received a Pentagon briefing in October 2002, one month prior to directing Halliburton to develop a secret plan for restoring and operating Iraq's oil infrastructure. The vice president's office was also made aware of a second contract worth up to $7 billion awarded to Halliburton four months later for implementing this plan.

• Time Magazine uncovered an e-mail indicating that the $7 billion contract awarded to Halliburton was "coordinated" with Cheney's office.

I could go on but, damn! Is anybody home out there? Our sons and daughters are dying because of this bs!

Look we live in the greatest nation in the free world, I just wish we could figure out that we are being lied to and coerced into supporting policies that are absolutely insane and ultimately immoral.

 

[Nupe2]

Go back in time.. after peace was declared after WWII with the Germans and Japanese, and we were the victors, how many more allied troops were killed? How many times were we attacked, how many improvised bombs, terrorists attacks (and OH BY THE WAY.. those were ongoing well into the 80's).. so YES you win the war, now you have to fight the peace.

TRUE.

No matter who wins there is always resistance, there are always diehards that refuse to surrender or admit defeat (last Japanese forward lookout surrendered in the Phillipines in 1974).

Again True

So yes, we CAN say we won the war, we decimated his Army, Navy, and Air Force, we DID accomplish the mission. This in and of itself is an entirely different mission.

One thing we didn't consider in Victory was how fast it would happen, how easy his forces would roll over and quit. In turn we didn't kill as many of them as we would have thought, nor did they stand and fight like we thought they would (They were not as fanatical as first thought) so a lot of dissenters survived.

And have now dragged us into another Nam-like quagmire, a fear I think all of America had even going back to the first Gulf War.

I still like the idea of the insurgents and terrorists fighting it out in Iraq then in downtown DC or Boston..

Not sure that would happen anyway. At least in DC the citizens are too well armed!

 

[Nupe2]

As far as the unnamed red karma giver. This "liberal jerk" hopes you appreciate the freedom that you have to call me one. In the words of the one and only G. Gordon Liddy..."we'll just have to agree to disagree." Thank you for your interest in our program.

 

[Nupe2]

You are a bit behind the times. We can't fight the Second Crusade since it was fought in 1147. The Ninth Crusade was fought in 1271. I think at best we would be fighting the Tenth Crusade.

 

[Nupe2]

Thanks Jazz! I appreciate your comment.

 

[jazz lady]

Thanks Jazz! I appreciate your comment.

You're welcome and I mean it.

 

[Larry Gude]

I let that slide once...

Eightball: "Personally, I think, uh... they don't really want to be involved in this war. You know, I mean... they sort of took away our freedom and gave it to the, to the gookers, you know. But they don't want it. They'd rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards."

...twice is enough.

What usually happens in communist regimes and dictatorships?

Soviet Union.
Germany.
Cambodia
China

To use Full Metal Jacket as some sort of analogy that we are doing this war stuff all wrong is, in my opinion, to set reality aside.

Vietnam did in fact kill lots and lots of their own people to achieve the great state. Same as all the other crews. This doesn't make the South perfect but absent us, a great many South Vietnamese would have been mass murdered and a great many paid with their lives once we were gone.

The point is that you can't claim that they'd rather be alive than free; they, like many in the Soviet Union, like Cambodia, like China, were very much likely to get killed. Why not fight for a chance?

As much fun as gets made of the Marine colonel, in my opinion, inside of every 'gook', which is a metaphor to me to include everyone living under tryranny, there IS an "American" trying to get out.

It is very hard to be an "American" to be free, when the price is likely death and it is made all the more difficult when the people who are supposed to be helping you throw off the yoke of tyranny, us, can't decide if we're gonna help you or not.

Iraq today would be a much more settled situation if the other side, the bad guys, knew that US resolve was unshakeable and absolute. They, like the North Vietnamse, are playing for public opinion, for battle fatigue.

Vietnam is a communist nation today and I don't think that's good but that doesn not make it a mistake that we fought there. Iraq is working on being a democracy with rule of law and individual rights. I think it and they are WAY better off than they were three years ago.

 

[vraiblonde]

And have now dragged us into another Nam-like quagmire, a fear I think all of America had even going back to the first Gulf War.

"Nam-like quagmire"

Nam didn't have to be a quagmire. With the right leadership, that war could have been won shortly after the Tet Offensive. As it stands, our wussy "leaders" bowed to the hippie protesters and bailed, leaving the North free to take over the South and devastate them. Don't you remember all the Vietnamese boat people in the mid- and late-70s?

The withdrawal also left the Khmer Rouge completely free and unfettered to kill some 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians.

And that's exactly what will happen if we withdraw from Iraq and don't finish the job. We can't lose our nerve, and we can't let the ignorant anti-war protesters and anti-Bush political rhetoric sway us.

The "quagmire" wasn't because of the NLF - it was because of the media and protestors in this country who rallied behind the Viet Cong .

 

[Nupe2]

"Nam-like quagmire"

Nam didn't have to be a quagmire. With the right leadership, that war could have been won shortly after the Tet Offensive. As it stands, our wussy "leaders" bowed to the hippie protesters and bailed, leaving the North free to take over the South and devastate them. Don't you remember all the Vietnamese boat people in the mid- and late-70s?

The withdrawal also left the Khmer Rouge completely free and unfettered to kill some 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians.

And that's exactly what will happen if we withdraw from Iraq and don't finish the job. We can't lose our nerve, and we can't let the ignorant anti-war protesters and anti-Bush political rhetoric sway us.

The "quagmire" wasn't because of the NLF - it was because of the media and protestors in this country who rallied behind the Viet Cong .

Vrai: You know we never agree on anything!
However, we really can't know what would have happened in Vietnam if the U.S. had chosen to bomb the North in a strategic manner. I think we might have won the war if we had done so but we would most likely have been stuck there in much the same manner as we are in Iraq; trying to win the peace. That one is a tougher nut to crack. I think we would have seen the North continue to support the VC in the south and would have had to endure many years of so-called "insurgency" before we would have been able to secure the country, if ever. Again, we'll never know.

Also, the climate in the country changed when it appeared that we had no viable strategy to win the war and the deaths continued to mount. Walter Cronkite and others were indeed instrumental in putting forth the notion that we needed to get out. Like it or not, the ability of a free press to express ideas is part of what our Nation is about. Ultimately, the American people demanded that we extricate ourselves from that mess and eventually we did so. I think we're heading toward a similar fate with this Iraq mess.

As far as "finishing the job" what exactly is that? How long will that take and are American voters willing to stay the course if it takes 10 years and 53,000 lives? I understand that this is a nasty business and that the world changed on 9/11. Maybe I just hope too hard that ultimately John Foster Dulles won't just be the name of an airport and that we can find a way to more or less peacefully coexist. Our other choice is non-existance. I don't think any of us wants that.

Good to hear from you.

 

[Mikeinsmd]

Iraq is a good rest area stop on the way to Syria.

Roger that!!! I'm surprised we haven't taken them out yet.

 

[Ken King]

I can see I'm all alone on this one. Yes I have. I saw the reasons and I would argue that you could use the same rationale to attack other "Axis" countries or even our so-called Allies (e.g., the Saudis).

You’re not all alone (sadly), there are many like you that have never understood the why we went there. And based on your statement here it seems unlikely that you have read the IWR as those arguments for why we went to war were directed solely at Iraq and are not interchangeable as you seem to believe.