Mission in Iraq???

[Ldir]

I think the mission is wealth transfer, enriching Bush/Cheney patrons from the pockets of the middle class.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: spidey07
The mission was to stop a huge supporter and enabler of terrorism before he used/provided already developed and further developing WMD especially given his ties to alqaeda. That has been accomplished.

Second - enable the country to maintain itself in a peacful manner. Working on that, making great strides.

"Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Pat Roberts (R-KS), definitively concluded Bush?s claim is inaccurate. From pg. 109 of their report:

Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and?the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

Read it and weep

I'm fully aware of that. The question whas what is the mission. I answered correctly.

On the other hand, why do you choose to believe some intelligence and not others? Such as all the intelligence and world wide support/belief by all those involved on the WMD production and capacity coupled with Sadam's direct support for terroism?

-edit- what I mean to say is intelligence has been wrong before, why blindly trust this piece of it?

 

[KlokWyze]

Originally posted by: palehorse74Sure, it grants access to information to every breathing soul, but is such insight or knowledge a good thing? Is it a good thing that Americans no longer have the tenacity to finish what they start? Is a weak national face the one we really should be showing the world? Does the world honestly see strength in our inability to agree to anything within our own borders? Does the 24/7 attack on our President truly represent democracy and a free society? Is that the example we really want to show the world? Does their seeing our extreme divisiveness spilled across their TV screens every day make us safer, or put us in more danger? Do you really believe that their perception of us improves when all they see is our internal bickering day-in and day-out? Do the nations who desire to become democracies see our lack of solidarity and change their minds? Is our right to disagree enough of an example of how democracy is great, or do the other strong nations in the world see it as weakness?

Does our own internal bickering and lack of solidarity make us stronger or weaker in the eyes of the world?

Sure, it grants access to information to every breathing soul, but is such insight or knowledge a good thing?

This is a dumb ****** question. Yes horse, insight and knowledge is terrible.

Is it a good thing that Americans no longer have the tenacity to finish what they start?
A war started based on obvious lies, control of another nation's resources, horrendous massive killings of innocent civilians, corporate war profiteering should be ended as soon as possible. I don't think innocent people (Americans and Iraqis) should be killed to make a few corrupt assholes rich. Reasonable?

Is a weak national face the one we really should be showing the world?

Killing 3rd world citizens with 2 billion dollar stealth bombers is NOT courageous. A nation that can tolerate difference in opinion, racial/cultural/religous diversity, conservation of civil liberties would show the world a STRONG national face. Dealing with difference in opinion with dissension is ignorance. Plain and simple.

Does the world honestly see strength in our inability to agree to anything within our own borders?

Idiotic question. What country doesn't have a difference in opinion within its very own borders? Utterly retarded.

Does the 24/7 attack on our President truly represent democracy and a free society?

Yes. You ever heard of freedom of speech? The president is a war criminal that should be tried for treason. Obvious.

Is that the example we really want to show the world?

Yes of course. Bush isn't exactly popular. :laugh:

Does their seeing our extreme divisiveness spilled across their TV screens every day make us safer, or put us in more danger?

Does invading other countries and encouraging terrorism there make us safer? No. America is hated more now than ever. Have you noticed?

Do you really believe that their perception of us improves when all they see is our internal bickering day-in and day-out?

Yes for now. The world can easily see the corruption @ the highest levels of our government and wish their "war on terror" to end immediately. This can only happen if Americans understand what is happening in the world, instead of what is reported on the MSM. So the more voices of truth the better.

Do the nations who desire to become democracies see our lack of solidarity and change their minds?

A country that wishes to spread democracy should at least be democratic. And yes "democracy" isn't going to be as popular anymore now that our government is run by corporate warmongering globalist puppets.

Is our right to disagree enough of an example of how democracy is great, or do the other strong nations in the world see it as weakness?

Our 'right' to disagree. WTF? I didn't know this was a right given to me. I'll just assume you mean openly argue against certain policies.... or our right of free speech. We really aren't a democracy anymore and if this right is ever taken once and for all then well have become a dictatorship. ie everyone is forced to have the same beliefs.

Does our own internal bickering and lack of solidarity make us stronger or weaker in the eyes of the world? Sure, just as much as any other country. But I think your missing the point. Countries don't care how we look. They want us to stop starting wars and forcing corporate capitalism on them.

If you really believe these questions are important than you simply don't understand WTF is going on. You have been lied to your whole life.

good luck bro.

 

[KlokWyze]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: palehorse74


The media is the single biggest influence on modern warfare, and it's the single biggest reason we have as many problems as we do.

I thought the single biggest influence on modern warfare was bullets.

Nope media is more powerful. Whats better, a dead population or an enslaved one?

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

ok, so he sometimes needs a translator.. now that i've cleared it up for you, what about it do you not get?

[/quote]

For the people who do not know what bush is saying.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: spidey07
The mission was to stop a huge supporter and enabler of terrorism before he used/provided already developed and further developing WMD especially given his ties to alqaeda. That has been accomplished.

Second - enable the country to maintain itself in a peacful manner. Working on that, making great strides.

"Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Pat Roberts (R-KS), definitively concluded Bush?s claim is inaccurate. From pg. 109 of their report:

Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and?the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

Read it and weep

I'm fully aware of that. The question whas what is the mission. I answered correctly.

On the other hand, why do you choose to believe some intelligence and not others? Such as all the intelligence and world wide support/belief by all those involved on the WMD production and capacity coupled with Sadam's direct support for terroism?

-edit- what I mean to say is intelligence has been wrong before, why blindly trust this piece of it?

Come on man, seriously. The only way you can link Saddam and terrorism is for his payment to suicide bombers families, ok that's a given, NONE of which ever hit the US, these were solely focused on Israel, and I'm sorry going to war to defend Israel is garbage. He was no threat to us. That's all the left, every single justification for going to war is false.

"Second - enable the country to maintain itself in a peacful manner. Working on that, making great strides."

And that is quiet a gem, we've surrendered Anbar completely.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: spidey07
The mission was to stop a huge supporter and enabler of terrorism before he used/provided already developed and further developing WMD especially given his ties to alqaeda. That has been accomplished.

Second - enable the country to maintain itself in a peacful manner. Working on that, making great strides.

"Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Pat Roberts (R-KS), definitively concluded Bush?s claim is inaccurate. From pg. 109 of their report:

Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and?the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

Read it and weep

I'm fully aware of that. The question whas what is the mission. I answered correctly.

On the other hand, why do you choose to believe some intelligence and not others? Such as all the intelligence and world wide support/belief by all those involved on the WMD production and capacity coupled with Sadam's direct support for terroism?

-edit- what I mean to say is intelligence has been wrong before, why blindly trust this piece of it?

Come on man, seriously. The only way you can link Saddam and terrorism is for his payment to suicide bombers families, ok that's a given, NONE of which ever hit the US, these were solely focused on Israel, and I'm sorry going to war to defend Israel is garbage. He was no threat to us. That's all the left, every single justification for going to war is false.

"Second - enable the country to maintain itself in a peacful manner. Working on that, making great strides."

And that is quiet a gem, we've surrendered Anbar completely.

Exactly. And if you use those payments as a means to justify invasion, we've got a few more countries we should be invading shortly. SA, Pakistan, Syria, Iran .....

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: sadguy
actually, the mission in iraq was to secure its oil and establish permanent military bases.

well, to establish a military foothold in the center of the oil fields that will be the last ones.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
THE mission regarding the invasion of Iraq was to thwart the launching of WMD that Bush said would occur within 40 days... He said they had WMD, their delivery systems and that they intended to launch them at (to meet the UN Charter requirments) us... or ours..

There was some indication in his 'War Powers Act' resolution that terrorism was an issue but he was dealing with the UN. That body we have a treaty with that mandates we follow its Charter's language..

Well we know there was no link twixt the 9/11 event and Iraq.. and we know that there are no WMD... so WE IS DONE... the MISSION IS OVER and has been before it started...

But, but, but.... what about the instability of the ME and gas prices? Surely we need to stay ther to insure it's instability.... I mean stability??

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Corbett
And people try to say this isnt a mostly anti-Bush forum. This thread proves otherwise.:laugh:

And people try to say the Bush base is stupid.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: spidey07
The mission was to stop a huge supporter and enabler of terrorism before he used/provided already developed and further developing WMD especially given his ties to alqaeda. That has been accomplished.

Second - enable the country to maintain itself in a peacful manner. Working on that, making great strides.

"Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Pat Roberts (R-KS), definitively concluded Bush?s claim is inaccurate. From pg. 109 of their report:

Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and?the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

Read it and weep

I'm fully aware of that. The question whas what is the mission. I answered correctly.

On the other hand, why do you choose to believe some intelligence and not others? Such as all the intelligence and world wide support/belief by all those involved on the WMD production and capacity coupled with Sadam's direct support for terroism?

-edit- what I mean to say is intelligence has been wrong before, why blindly trust this piece of it?

You did not answer correctly. You answered what the official line is and your claims that Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda has been proven false (and Bush himself for the millionth time stated that Saddam had no connection NOTHING to do with 9/11 and no connection with Al Quaeda (THEY HATED EACH OTHER). Additionally, the intelligence was debated and officials at the CIA and NSA were actively protesting the selective usage of intelligence by the current administration to further their agenda. The same thing is now occuring with Iran as the IAEA other thread
is protesting.
Furthermore, even if you were correct and the administration went to war with their best unbiased intelligence they still have not admitted to invading a sovereign nation based upon false/wrong intelligence. A few mutterings here and there but where are the firings? Where is the Secretary of Defense resigning for this massive bungling? Who takes responsibility for the six months tops and we will be out comment? Where is the oil subsidy for the war? No responsibility just like the twisted usage of selective intelligence and the sly linking of Saddam and Bin Laden/9/11 to make Americans accept the Iraqi war.

And you failed to respond to my post concerning many other nations with more capable WMD programs in development or potential deployment yet we do nothing/did nothing about them other than Iran potentially. What made Saddam,a secluarist, suddenly a WMD threat to the United States after 9/11 given he had nothing to do with it as opposed to these other nations (especially the "axis of evil") who had ties (Iran, Sudan, Syria) to Al Qaeda?

President Bush himself stated that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 so why did we invade Iraq and not Iran, N. Korea, Syria, Sudan (three of which have Al Qaueda ties)?

The mission has been accomplished right? Ridiculous partyline crap.

The mission was to remove a dictator that was our ally some years before (1980's) and to protect our geopolitical interests in the region as a stopgap against China and to a lesser extent India with their increased oil needs. It was about the oil not fighting terrorism. If we cared about terrorism we would still be focused on Afghanistan and the Taliban as well as Bin Laden as well attempting with all our power to broker a two state system between Israel/Palestine. Heck we would be sabre rattling Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Of course this my opinion and may be as wrong as your Al Quaeda Saddam ties belief :laugh:

AHHH enough armchair pontificating on geo-political regional international politics and corporate interests. I hear lasagna calling.

Edit: I am not a liberal but a Republican who despises Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld policies; especially foreign ones. I agree fully with the administration's invasion of Afghanistant but after that ...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
the current mission is to assist the Iraqi's in slowly taking over the security of their own nation while propping up and protecting their newly elected Government.

In other words, we will sit there for a few more years until it's safe to hand it over to the Iraqi Divisions. Once we can determine that our leaving would not lead to an INSTANT collapse of their democracy, then we'll leave. period.

What is it about this simple concept that you people dont get?

The legality of it to start with... Iraq was a sovereign nation before we toppled the government of Iraq with out authority to do so from the International body with whom we have a valid treaty. We invaded based on the exigent circumstance of WMD launching..

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: spidey07
The mission was to stop a huge supporter and enabler of terrorism before he used/provided already developed and further developing WMD especially given his ties to alqaeda. That has been accomplished.

Second - enable the country to maintain itself in a peacful manner. Working on that, making great strides.

OMG... hehehehehhe really... that is incredible.. I rather suspect you don't read the CIA's recent statements with any acceptance of them.. or accept that 'great strides' would require ummmmmmmmm... even baby steps to be true..
amazing..

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: LunarRay
THE mission regarding the invasion of Iraq was to thwart the launching of WMD that Bush said would occur within 40 days... He said they had WMD, their delivery systems and that they intended to launch them at (to meet the UN Charter requirments) us... or ours..

There was some indication in his 'War Powers Act' resolution that terrorism was an issue but he was dealing with the UN. That body we have a treaty with that mandates we follow its Charter's language..

Well we know there was no link twixt the 9/11 event and Iraq.. and we know that there are no WMD... so WE IS DONE... the MISSION IS OVER and has been before it started...

But, but, but.... what about the instability of the ME and gas prices? Surely we need to stay ther to insure it's instability.... I mean stability??

Well... my analogy might be.... A robber enters your house... kicks out the occupants.. has them arrested or because there may be siblings there encourages them to fight.. heheheheh .. no parents, ya see... AND then begins to remodel the house and all that to suit his long term needs.. The police come and being nice guys too.. lend a hand.. actually help paint the interior black.. and the exterior... red.. then.... dig a big hole and let the house fall into it... cuz no one really lives there anymore... (lives)...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: randym431
Topic Title: Mission in Iraq???
Topic Summary: Exactly what is it?

Secure the Oil for Haliburton. Mission Accomplished

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: LunarRay
THE mission regarding the invasion of Iraq was to thwart the launching of WMD that Bush said would occur within 40 days... He said they had WMD, their delivery systems and that they intended to launch them at (to meet the UN Charter requirments) us... or ours..

There was some indication in his 'War Powers Act' resolution that terrorism was an issue but he was dealing with the UN. That body we have a treaty with that mandates we follow its Charter's language..

Well we know there was no link twixt the 9/11 event and Iraq.. and we know that there are no WMD... so WE IS DONE... the MISSION IS OVER and has been before it started...

But, but, but.... what about the instability of the ME and gas prices? Surely we need to stay ther to insure it's instability.... I mean stability??

Well... my analogy might be.... A robber enters your house... kicks out the occupants.. has them arrested or because there may be siblings there encourages them to fight.. heheheheh .. no parents, ya see... AND then begins to remodel the house and all that to suit his long term needs.. The police come and being nice guys too.. lend a hand.. actually help paint the interior black.. and the exterior... red.. then.... dig a big hole and let the house fall into it... cuz no one really lives there anymore... (lives)...

And then the Army comes along with it's bulldozers, fills the hole in and builds a base on top of it.......

Anybody have a problem with that???? It must suck having a conscience, huh!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: randym431
Topic Title: Mission in Iraq???
Topic Summary: Exactly what is it?

Secure the Oil for Haliburton. Mission Accomplished

You'd think at least Haliburton could hand over Osama to us. It seems they're quailified to do everything else, why not that?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: randym431
Topic Title: Mission in Iraq???
Topic Summary: Exactly what is it?

Secure the Oil for Haliburton. Mission Accomplished

You'd think at least Haliburton could hand over Osama to us. It seems they're quailified to do everything else, why not that?

But they'd charge $100 mil for the $25 mil reward.

 

[1EZduzit]

Yeah, they'd charge us AND want the reward too. 125 Million bucks would be a bargin for Osama's head IMO.

 

[randym431]

And people try to say this isn?t a mostly anti-Bush forum. This thread proves otherwise.

Hey, I started this post and in no way was I being anti Bush, really. I just thought Huffington's question was a very good one. And one that needs to be answered.
You know, if it could be answered in a realistic way, maybe more people would get behind Bush on this.

The fact is they have lied and mislead us. Bush once said mission is over. Cheney also has said most the fighting would be over soon. He said that some time ago and since we have lost 1000 more men & women over there.

Is it really so anti-Bush to just ask this question.
The telling fact is... can they answer this question?

Cheney tried and he was wrong (i.e. insurgency ending).
Bush tried and he was wrong (i.e. mission accomplished).
American people are not going to tolerate another Vietnam happening here.

They (we) want some true and smart answers from this admin.
This admin has been wrong every step of the way so far.
Hey, thats not the American people?s fault!!!
This is LEADERSHIP we are questioning here. So questioning that is anti American? Thats anti Bush?

Currently there is no draft, but if it came to that, you'd see this mis-directed war end faster than you could blink.

Its a great "pie in the sky" belief that we can impose our way of freedom-life on others, but sorry... It just doesn?t work that way. Any more than if they felt we should change our way of life to one like theirs.

Fighting terrorism is something we must do, after 9/11 especially, but our leadership MUST answer this simple question. And they MUST get it right.

?Staying the course? is not a mission. And folks, even republicans are growing weary of our current leadership on this.

3000 American lives lost is a high price to pay while waiting for this admin to get things right. If they can not be straight with the American people, and answer this simple question, then that is THEIR fault, not ours.

Its OUR mission to elect competent leadership. That is OUR mission.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Well, if YOU say so, then you go to Iraq and get off the forums... we would all be SO pleased... and if we were lucky, you wouldn't come back.

lol. typical. i see the shoe fits well...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: LunarRay
THE mission regarding the invasion of Iraq was to thwart the launching of WMD that Bush said would occur within 40 days... He said they had WMD, their delivery systems and that they intended to launch them at (to meet the UN Charter requirments) us... or ours..

There was some indication in his 'War Powers Act' resolution that terrorism was an issue but he was dealing with the UN. That body we have a treaty with that mandates we follow its Charter's language..

Well we know there was no link twixt the 9/11 event and Iraq.. and we know that there are no WMD... so WE IS DONE... the MISSION IS OVER and has been before it started...

But, but, but.... what about the instability of the ME and gas prices? Surely we need to stay ther to insure it's instability.... I mean stability??

Well... my analogy might be.... A robber enters your house... kicks out the occupants.. has them arrested or because there may be siblings there encourages them to fight.. heheheheh .. no parents, ya see... AND then begins to remodel the house and all that to suit his long term needs.. The police come and being nice guys too.. lend a hand.. actually help paint the interior black.. and the exterior... red.. then.... dig a big hole and let the house fall into it... cuz no one really lives there anymore... (lives)...

And then the Army comes along with it's bulldozers, fills the hole in and builds a base on top of it.......

Anybody have a problem with that???? It must suck having a conscience, huh!

To violate International Law (as agreed by many legal scholars in the US and around the world) and the US Law cuz the UN Charter is a treaty we signed on to.. making it our law too.. by Invading Iraq.. not to mention all the subsequent charges the indictment ought to include strongly indicates the absence of anything that might resemble a conscience on the part of the perpetrators of this "Mission Iraq"...