What's The Mission In Iraq?

Brian Gillingham

Oct 22 2006, 02:55 PM

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

QUOTE

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

Oct 22 2006, 11:28 PM

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

Oct 22 2006, 11:43 PM

QUOTE(coolduck123456 @ Oct 22 2006, 07:28 PM)

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

Oct 23 2006, 12:20 AM

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

Oct 23 2006, 12:37 AM

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

Oct 23 2006, 10:01 AM

QUOTE(coolduck123456 @ Oct 23 2006, 01:20 AM)

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).

QUOTE

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

Oct 30 2006, 09:08 PM

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

May 18 2007, 04:52 PM

QUOTE

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.

slushpuppy

May 19 2007, 07:56 AM

Two words, avenge and oil.

~Dave

May 19 2007, 08:07 AM

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

Latest Entries

DGalgin

Apr 27 2008, 01:36 AM

QUOTE(Brian Gillingham @ Oct 22 2006, 09:55 AM)

[color=#FF0000]If you feel that Bin Laden is a threat, blame the Republican party for not having caught him already.

I would like to know why we have to blame the Republican Party for not having caught him when your wonderful adulteress President Bill Clinton had a chance to destroy a vehicle he was traveling in, in Afghanistan while he was president. Even worse he had more then one chance to take out Osama Bin Laden. I place allot of blame on President Clinton for not killing Bin Laden and dealing or preventing 9/11. It is not President Bush's fault for taking out Bin Laden, the chance to do that was back during the Clinton Administration. I blame the Democratic Party for not having the balls to take out Bin Laden.

baphometslayer

Apr 4 2008, 08:06 PM

QUOTE(takotsu @ Apr 3 2008, 11:57 AM)

I'm sick of people saying there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You don't know that. You haven't inspected the ENTIRE country.
There's 169,234 square miles of desert in Iraq. The Army has dug up thousands of conventional bombs and artillery shells in the desert, don't you think that someone, somewhere would have been able to bury some kind of weapon in the desert and have it NOT be found for years?

The United States never even searched for these "WMDs" in the first place. That was the United Nations' job. They searched less than a dozen sites and WARNED THE IRAQIS IN ADVANCE about the searches. There are satellite photos showing some of the sites moving several large covered flat-bed trucks just days before the inspections. Where did these trucks go? They disappeared into the desert and were never seen again.

Don't try to play it off like we need out because the troops don't want to be there. THEY VOLUNTEERED! If you sign up to join the military, EXPECT TO BE IN A WAR! that's your job. They chose this, they can't complain, they weren't drafted. Besides, most soldiers aren't pissed they're there or anything, the news just finds the one or two guys in the unit that misses his family enough to hate being there and will say so on the news.
On another note, can someone please prove to me that this war is about oil? I just can't see this. If it was about oil, why aren't Americans running the oil fields instead of the Iraqis that are now?

I believe you're missing the entire point of people whining about there never being any WMDs over there. We were explicitly told that the Iraqi regime was a direct threat to US interests because of two reasons. Because Saddam had WMDs and he also had links with Al-Queda.

Lets not nitpick here, last month the Al-Queda theory was proven to be completely false by the Pentagon itself. I don't know about you, but I'm sure we still haven't found any WMDs.

And that's a problem, the entire pretense of this war were those two reasons. One of them is false, and the other the current administration isn't even TRYING to pursue. Does that not bother you at all? Being lied to? Probably not, like is stated above people are sheeple and follow the news almost completely BLINDLY. The fact is, all we're doing over there now is Nation Building at the expense of the American people. Bush ran his campaign on a promise of NO NATION BUILDING. But I digress.

And I dunno about your last quote. Presidential campaign donations prove that a large fraction of the troops over there are disenchanted. Why shouldn't they be? They face the chance that if they become injured they'll have to deal with a LESS than adequate medical attention that the military will provide them.

So, until anything new happens, THERE ARE NO WMDs in Iraq, there never WAS. And don't plan on that changing, they aren't even looking for them, they never planned to. The administration lied to us, and the people took it in the a**, like they always do.

rayzoredge

Apr 3 2008, 02:50 PM

One thing's for certain about this "war": it's still going on.

Don't believe ANYTHING that anyone says about the "war" in Iraq. Notice that no one said anything about Afghanistan? Everyone (and I mean everyone official) that has something to say about the war is simply saying stuff to feed us "information" about what's going on down there, what our long-term goals are going to be, etc. It's POLITICS, and you are being informed or talked to about this issue by people that are politicians OR people that work for these politicians OR people that have a hand in the pot of a politician.

Stop jumping to conclusions with Michael Moore and the Loose Change guy and whatever else is out there as far as conspiracy theory. We're so wrapped up on being spoonfed information that we don't even think for ourselves anymore. Now what the heck is up with that? Most people that I've talked to about reasons behind the war mention all the crap I've heard before: Bush's vendetta, oil, war on terrorism, WMDs, etc. Is that really YOUR opinion, YOUR investigation results, YOUR thoughts on the matter?

Instead of treading behind trying to figure out what the heck happened and why, let's try to put out some change in taking care of our guys and ending the fiasco that is STILL GOING ON AS I TYPE THIS over there. I don't know how, personally, but it definitely isn't going to change with the voting in of a new president. (Everyone knows that we have to actually end what we began... and it will be a while before we are physically and logistically able to make a larger-scale pull out of Iraq.) It's not going to change with conspirators continually feeding alternative theories on what happened in the past. It's what we, as a nation, are willing and able to do NOW. We can analyze the history later during peace time.

Look at it this way: we went in, we're trying to make a difference in a war-torn country (from my perspective, anyway), and we need to eventually shift our focus to bigger and better things. As citizens, we have to do whatever we have to do to make this time bearable for fellow Soldiers of the United States and not just ridicule, point fingers, and sit on our bums, rolling our eyes at the news and not even, for a chance, wondering why we don't even hear much about our guys down in the sandbox on the television anymore. (Notice that? It was a hot topic for the news then... apparently America prioritizes what our celebrities are doing over that, though.) If you want to promote change, do what you have to do to make it happen: write a letter, hold a rally, vote for someone that you KNOW (as far as one can know about a politician) would make a good leader and NOT what they spit out to the public to get voted into office, etc.

Take what you've been fed about this war and throw it out the window. There are no facts to have straight unless you actually look into the matter yourself.

Don't get me started into political parties... I already think that it's dumb that we as a nation are separated into groups according to how we think and now we have to band together to oppose one another? Within our own nation? (See why I hate politics?) It doesn't make any sense! Republicans and Democrats and liberals and independents and blah blah blah... it's all retarded.

takotsu

Apr 3 2008, 11:57 AM

I'm sick of people saying there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You don't know that. You haven't inspected the ENTIRE country.
There's 169,234 square miles of desert in Iraq. The Army has dug up thousands of conventional bombs and artillery shells in the desert, don't you think that someone, somewhere would have been able to bury some kind of weapon in the desert and have it NOT be found for years?

The United States never even searched for these "WMDs" in the first place. That was the United Nations' job. They searched less than a dozen sites and WARNED THE IRAQIS IN ADVANCE about the searches. There are satellite photos showing some of the sites moving several large covered flat-bed trucks just days before the inspections. Where did these trucks go? They disappeared into the desert and were never seen again.

Don't try to play it off like we need out because the troops don't want to be there. THEY VOLUNTEERED! If you sign up to join the military, EXPECT TO BE IN A WAR! that's your job. They chose this, they can't complain, they weren't drafted. Besides, most soldiers aren't pissed they're there or anything, the news just finds the one or two guys in the unit that misses his family enough to hate being there and will say so on the news.

On another note, can someone please prove to me that this war is about oil? I just can't see this. If it was about oil, why aren't Americans running the oil fields instead of the Iraqis that are now?

dre

Apr 1 2008, 05:08 AM

QUOTE

Sorry, Congress did not approve the Iraq war. The war is completely unconstitutional. Bush is on a runaway power trip that needs to be ended. Take a look at some of the Executive Orders he has put in to effect.

He gave himself power to declare martial law after the next disaster happens in the US (such as a terror attack, hint hint, Alex Jones). Did he ask anyone if they agreed with him? Like he cares.

QUOTE

It's completely sickening that Americans are letting this happen to them under their nose. Start electing officials that will actually represent you!

Officials are just puppets for people such as those who attend the Bilderberg meetings (about 120 of the richest and most politically influential people on Earth). If I really wanted to choose someone honest, I would choose Ron Paul in a whim, but I can't vote anyway.

ADD REPLY / Got an Opinion!	a humble request :-)	RAPID SEARCH!	Free Hosting	[X]
Express your Opinions, Thoughts or Contribute your information that might help someone here. Ask your Doubts & Queries to get answers.. "Together, We enlight each other!"	Register FREE for AD-FREE forum, Create your own topics, Ask Questions, track topics, setup subscriptions & notifications and Get a Free Website w/ Email and FTP.		500MB Space No Ads, CPanel, FTP, PHP, MySQL, EMails - 100% FREE