What's The Mission In Iraq?

[Brian Gillingham 0]

Bush will go down in history as the most stubborn and least wise of all Presidents of the USA.

 

I emphasize "least wise" because I feel that there is no wisdom being used - only bad intelligence (remember the scene from "Team America"? Spotswoode "That was bad I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E., very bad I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E.").

 

So, Bush said very recently "There is one thing we will not do: We will not pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete."

 

I know that he is trying to straddle the line for support from moderate republicans, keeping up the "tough image". But it simply isn't wise. Read Bush resists course change in Iraq

 

This all makes me wonder - especially after Bush spoke on the aircraft carrier with the huge banner "Mission Accomplished!" So, if the mission is not accomplished after you declared it - after we didn't find WMD, after we killed Uday and Qusay (sp), after we caught Saddam, after we brought democracy, after they voted....

 

The real terrorist today is the Republican party. Now, in this desperation, the Republican party has come up with an ad "The Stakes" using images of Osama Bin Laden that clearly aims to terrify people into voting for Republicans. Watch their ad - and ask yourself if they are trying to scare you into voting for them. They are using fear in an attempt to control the minds of the people - basically the exact definition of terrorism. Be afraid!!! Just don't be afraid of what they tell you to be afraid of - more frightening things include: Mass Starvation, destructive Climatic Change, New Pharmaceuticals, Idiot youth damned to repeat mistakes of our ancestors (lack of unbiased historical education), health epidemics, depletion of resources including WATER and AIR.

 

If you feel that Bin Laden is a threat, blame the Republican party for not having caught him already. It amazes me that they'd be so stupid as to remind people that OBL is a threat - when they haven't dealt with that threat in any real way (diversion to Iraq probably ruined the early chances to deal with the threat) (CIA branch to hunt Bin Laden closed) (Bush don't care about Bin Laden). We'd have to be really stupid to vote for the people who failed dealing with the threat.

 

After Bush failed to follow Bin Laden into Tora Bora, Bush said

March 13, 2002 "Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country".

Now, let me get this straight... 2001 - Bin Laden executed plan for 9/11... Bush said "Dead or Alive". Six months later, Bush says that he doesn't care about Bin Laden.... now, we are told that Bin Laden is a huge threat again (he is a star in their commercial, after all). Remember that a few months ago, we learned a few months after the fact, that the CIA branch that was set up to hunt Bin Laden was closed. Bush denied that the office closed (typical), and Kerry wrote a letter demanding that the office open immediately and get the resources that it needs to finish the job and hold Bin Laden accountable for his actions - who's the tough guy here?

[coolduck123456 0]

I kind of agree with you, but not really. Yeah, it was wrong to go into Iraq, but what do you want the U.S to do. Pull out the troops now and let Iraq rot with terrorists all around. Since we began all of this mess, How about we finish it. It's like building a house. Since you started it, you must finish it even if it is challenging and difficult to complete. Don't call the republican party "terrorists" because I think Bush isn't the only person who would have done what he has! And also it would be damn hard to catch someone if a whole country like Pakistan and surronding countries are with this particular person. I do appreciate what you said and feel your anger and frustration!

[Brian Gillingham 0]

I kind of agree with you, but not really. Yeah, it was wrong to go into Iraq, but what do you want the U.S to do. Pull out the troops now and let Iraq rot with terrorists all around. Since we began all of this mess, How about we finish it. It's like building a house. Since you started it, you must finish it even if it is challenging and difficult to complete. Don't call the republican party "terrorists" because I think Bush isn't the only person who would have done what he has! And also it would be damn hard to catch someone if a whole country like Pakistan and surronding countries are with this particular person. I do appreciate what you said and feel your anger and frustration!

 

The analogy to the building of a house is only fair if you first state that this house was first lived in by some Iraqi family BEFORE our invasion -- and that the house has been destroyed (directly or indirectly as a result of our starting the conflict), and now we are responsible to rebuild that house, eh? We have absolutely every obligation to restore more than just their houses - how about their electricity and clean water? Many reports have these utilities at lower % levels than before our invasion (remember our "Shock and Awe" which really destroyed 99% of electricity for months and caused great damage to the water supplies). Not to mention that total deaths in Iraq are much higher than before our invasion -- it could be inferred that if Saddam were still there, the world would be better off (many international analysts agree).

 

I said that the use of ads like "The Stakes" by the Republican party - are terrorist actions by definition. You can't argue that -- and you make no point by saying that Bush isn't the only one who would have done what he did. What he actually did was attack a sovereign nation under the collective drive to find those pesky WMD (don't you remember how Cheney and Rice were being terrorists back then? -- "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud") and later blame the fact that we're there to those who gathered there to fight the occupation (we label them mostly as "terrorists" or insurgents).

Look up TERRORISM in the dictionary - and you will have to agree that the latest RNC ad, "The Stakes" is a terrorist action. Can't you see that they are trying to scare YOU? You see, with terrorism, nobody has to die - by definition, they only must be scared enough to influence the people.

[coolduck123456 0]

I never disagreed with the conditions the Iraqi people are living in because I know how bad it is, but we needed to get rid of the dictator of Iraq. We knew he was not only a threat the United States, but a threat to the whole world. What were we supposed to do, sit around like some puppets and watch 9/11 all over again. We took action and we are continuing to take the necessary steps to win the War on Terror. And I do believe I was right with my analogy. And the Iraqi people aren't helping the cause either, with the fighting bewteen one another. And now, by defending the president, don't try to tell me that another president wouldn't have done what Bush has done. If a group of countries are seen as a threat, wouldn't you do something against them. Especially if they were responsible from the lives of millions on 9/11? Saddam Husein was a terrorist. He killed millions of people as a dictator and needed to get rid of. The war on terror has to be dealt with. And on your outlook you'd much rather take soldiers out of Iraq and let the country rot.

[Brian Gillingham 0]

I believe that some president in the future would not have made the same mistakes that Bush has -- especially given the historical lessons learned by Bush's mistakes (doh! ). You must have missed Barack Obama on Meet the Press today; his answers give me hope for more SMART politicians one day soon.

 

It really isn't a question of rebuilding houses in Iraq -- I don't remember that being stated anywhere in the lead up to the war or after it evolved into a war for reasons other than WMD and getting Saddam and bringing democracy, and stopping torture (we SAID that we were going to stop the torture. Big whoops there!).

 

I argue in a previous post here that the Mission in Iraq IS accomplished, so we should LEAVE NOW!!!.

 

What is the mission in Iraq today??? The better question seems to be "Is Bush hiding his reason for staying in Iraq?" You must be an idiot to not have a good reason for being there -- when all 16 intelligence agency reports pretty much agree that the US presence in Iraq is spawning new anti-American terrorist at a rate faster than we're killing them. Is Bush an idiot? No, I think that Bush must have a good reason for wanting to stay in Iraq.... but he can't tell us Americans for some reason. He only says that we must win this war - nothing else is an option. The reasons that he gives are mostly factually incorrect and logically bad arguments.

[Yacoby 0]

but we needed to get rid of the dictator of Iraq. We knew he was not only a threat the United States, but a threat to the whole world. What were we supposed to do, sit around like some puppets and watch 9/11 all over again. We took action and we are continuing to take the necessary steps to win the War on Terror. And I do believe I was right with my analogy. And the Iraqi people aren't helping the cause either, with the fighting bewteen one another. And now, by defending the president, don't try to tell me that another president wouldn't have done what Bush has done. If a group of countries are seen as a threat, wouldn't you do something against them. Especially if they were responsible from the lives of millions on 9/11?

How was he a threat to America? Was it because of the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that he had, that we haven't found yet. He didn't even have a missile powerful enough to reach America.
There is no evidence that he was in any way connected with Al-Qaeda. Even the CIA said so. So there was absolutely no need to invade Iraq, apart from removing Saddam Husein, and if they are so interested in removing dictators, why don't they remove other dictators? (and stop funding some of them).

Saddam Husein was a terrorist. He killed millions of people as a dictator and needed to get rid of. The war on terror has to be dealt with.

Agreed, he needed to be removed from power, the War on Terror however, is going to be impossible to win with the current tactics. Look what is happening in Iraq, America is breeding terrorists faster than it can kill them.

Unfortunately, when we went into Iraq, we created a huge power vacuum, and started a civil war because of this. It doesn't look very good if you just turn around and leave after totally destroying a country.

[Kioku 0]

Hey, look. Another thread created by Brian Gillingham that tries to make it look like Iraq was some happy place before we knocked Saddam down a notch and doesn't grasp that after you take out their leader, you need to help them rebuild. I'm not suprised.

[Mermaid711 0]

If you feel that Bin Laden is a threat, blame the Republican party for not having caught him already. It amazes me that they'd be so stupid as to remind people that OBL is a threat - when they haven't dealt with that threat in any real way (diversion to Iraq probably ruined the early chances to deal with the threat) (CIA branch to hunt Bin Laden closed) (Bush don't care about Bin Laden). We'd have to be really stupid to vote for the people who failed dealing with the threat.

First of all, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT! That is not the only thing we are in Iraq for. And when you say that we are wasting our time over there, think of all the young men and women that have lost their lives, serving in Iraq so you could go to sleep at night not worried about an insergent bomming your neighborhood. And we are also over there so we can help the Iraqis recover from a vicious dictatorship, and help them take controll over their own contrie.

*********

Also, do realize that my daddy served over there so be careful what you say about thee war.
Edited May 18, 2007 by Mermaid711 (see edit history)

[slushpuppy 0]

Two words, avenge and oil.

[~Dave 0]

to answer your question, there is no mission i dont think any more, Bush is winging it right now!

[bhavesh 0]

I agree with slushpuppy, and believe that, Bush's main objective is revenge and to aquire oil wells. Iraq has one of the worlds richest oil wells, and everybody knows the role of oil in coming future. All weapons will get ceased without oil no body can win war without oil. It has deep impact on a country's internal security.So I think what Bush has done is good as far as America is concerned, but at the same time it has generated tremendous anger among Islamic countries.

[jopak134 0]

america invaded iraq for the oil and the influenceall american external problems are created by america.example iran, do you know why they hate americans so much? before this present regime in iran. there is a leader that is so influtential that they deposed him because america is worried.how about cuba? before castro, they supported the totalitarian regime of some general.russia, after the WW2 they pardoned some high nazi officials and protected them.

[dre 0]

What's The Mission In Iraq?

To let the war profiteers get their money. Therefore, Bush is winning.

america invaded iraq for the oil and the influence
all american external problems are created by america.

example iran, do you know why they hate americans so much? before this present regime in iran. there is a leader that is so influtential that they deposed him because america is worried.

how about cuba? before castro, they supported the totalitarian regime of some general.

russia, after the WW2 they pardoned some high nazi officials and protected them.

Cold War leftovers. The Soviet Union had their share in it too, and there wasn't really any other way to do it other than choose anybody to keep peace, oppose your enemy, and fight for you. I think blaming the current generation is ridiculous, in fact, the military is under the control of itself, so any blame directed elsewhere is completely idiotic. I came to America from Ukraine and let me tell you, they talk a whole load of bulls*** there, blaming ANYTHING they possibly can on America, and from that I infer that things are likewise in most other places.
Edited February 29, 2008 by dre (see edit history)

[baphometslayer 0]

First of all, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT! That is not the only thing we are in Iraq for. And when you say that we are wasting our time over there, think of all the young men and women that have lost their lives, serving in Iraq so you could go to sleep at night not worried about an insergent bomming your neighborhood. And we are also over there so we can help the Iraqis recover from a vicious dictatorship, and help them take controll over their own contrie.
*********

Also, do realize that my daddy served over there so be careful what you say about thee war.

I get tired of seeing you people call anti-war activists out as if they didn't support the troops. Support the Troops needs to be thought of as a SUBJECTIVE term. And, despite your request, I am going to say this;

The war in Iraq was a mistake of epic proportions. Bush purported that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. We STILL haven't found any. Then Bush claims that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam had links together. Although the media is trying to downplay this, an extensive study by the Pentagon has revealed that No, they had no contact whatsoever.

So what now? We went in and messed their stuff up. And we have to fix it, but we need a deadline set in stone, otherwise this will never end. This war is screwing our economy while the Neo-cons and Liberals continue to promote corporate welfare. Not to mention the no-bid contracts the White House has issued to the likes of Blackwater, Halliburton, and KBR who do nothing but violate their position by breaking laws and stealing money which is also putting our SOLDIERS IN MORE DANGER(Research Blackwater on this one). These Corporations need to be held accountable for their actions, yet they are TOTALLY IMMUNE and are not held accountable to the American people.

Your dad served in the war you say? I am infinitely grateful to him for putting his life on the line over there, but the war was a mistake. Also when you join the forces you take an oath to protect the Constitution. Funny, because the democrats and Neo-cons in the Republican Party are violating it beyond belief.



As for blaming the war on the Republicans.......all I can do is LOL. First you need to understand the situation the Republican party is in. The party is being hijacked by people who shouldn't even be able to call themselves Republican. You want to know who was a good Republican? Research Barry Goldwater. He represented the ideals of the Republican party before Religious dingbats took it over. Anyways, please blame the Neo-Conservative Republicans for the war. At the moment a lot of True conservative Republicans are attempting to re-take over the Party, but the people in power now are illegally blocking as every chance they get. It's hard to fight the man.

The fact is, it is now possible to blame the Democrats for this mess as well. Hell, even I voted to put them in office in 2006 because they promised to end the war. The Democratic party then proceeded to SCREW THE ENTIRE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT. All the people that are in power right now, and none of them is lobbying their power to end the war. And please, I don't want to hear any of that "Bush blocked it" BS. Perhaps if you knew anything about the American Political system, you'd realize that once the Democrats got in office in 2006, they could have ended the war if they very sincerely wanted to. They didn't. They made a half-assed atempt to end it, and after they failed, they just said, "Well, we did everything we could, lets try something else." What they needed to do was stage a filibuster and DO NOT FALTER until they got a resolution passed. They're playing you fools like a harp just so they can get more power. And all the while, they were attempting to CUT the war fund. Sorry, but that's not the way to end the war. That's the way to put our men and women overseas in more danger than they already are.

So please, don't demonize one party over the other. They are both equally to blame. And please, take your crazy liberal-self and listen to a logical Democrat - Mike Gravel.

Mass Starvation, destructive Climatic Change, New Pharmaceuticals,

I attribute the fall of the nation to people like you who promote extreme partisanship Politics.

Global Warming - Not a proven fact. There's plenty of research on both sides of this argument. This confirms my earlier suspicions of you being liberal. Gullible as always.
Presciption pandemic - Something Democrats would spread with their prolific and unconstitutional "Universal healthcare"
Mass Starvation - Where the hell do you live? haha

[sonesay 7]

 

Man the oil price is going up its crazy. More and more people are opting to catch a bus into the city rather then take their cars and it makes sense because its much cheaper. The comments made about war over oil is true I think. I've heard talks from many sources, people, news about USA over there for oil but I don't how they can just be over there for oil alone. They cant just take the oil right without paying because that would be stealing? Are they taking it and saying oh we are helping out with security and we will pay you this x amount for the oil.

 

Yeah suddam was a crazy guy but he may or may not have been involved with the attack on 9/11. You guys got hit bad and wanted to eliminate any chance of it happening again so theres nothing wrong there. Except I hear theres no WDM.. Makes me think you guys wanted to kick his *bottom* and maybe hopefully get the guys who actually did it in the process?

 

Back on the oil issue, I'm not saying you guys went in there solely for the oil. When I say you guys I mean your government because thats who decides things right but it would make sense if that was part of the agenda. When the oil eventually runs out and theres only enough for use in the military whats going to happen when armies cant move their forces around on the vehicles that depend on fuel. You wont be able to launch air strikes or move your ships in the water if there is no fuel. Tanks will be useless stationary. Your rockets and missiles cant fly on electricity so I'm sure there is going to be a lot of weapons and oil stored away by each government for time of war in the future.

 

I don't know whats going to happen. The way war is fought might change a bit and depend heavily on land conflicts. Its going to be chaos as more people are going to have to fight with guns instead of planes coming in and dropping bombs to clear an area or how ever they do it. Who knows whats the point of invading another country if you cant transport your people there right lol?

 

What ever happens in Iraq I hope they recover soon or else alot more people will continue to die there. Makes me feel lucky to be safe in a country like mine.