• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Mission in Iraq???

R

randym431

Golden Member
On the Al Franken radio show on 9/13 old Al had Arianna Huffington as a guest. She ask a good question, directed at the Bush admin. Arianna Huffington's question, "what is the mission in Iraq that we have to complete in order to have been successful?"
I thought that was a good question. What "is" this mission?

If you think about it, there is no defined mission for success. I dont even see a defined mission. So if we are EVER to be done and out of there. and stop the death of our men and women over there, what is the mission and how would we know it was completed? Looks like we will be there FOREVER, if you are waiting for an answer.

Again, what mission in Iraq would we have to complete to have success stopping terrorism? Is it possible?

Just being over there and waiting and fighting is not a mission. And waiting for iraq to support themself, someday (if someday) isnt a mission. Its an open ended long dark tunnel with no end. We could still be there 50 years from now. Is that what we want?

And we thought Viewnam was a never ending dark tunnel. (and it was)


 
the current mission in iraq seems to be to preserve the status quo until president bush can pass the buck onto the next president.
 
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...
 
A Possible Reason....

"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)

"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports)."
 
Well the mission has morphed into trying to lessen the damage done by the Dub's ill advised invasion of Iraq.
 
Originally posted by: Corbett
And people try to say this isnt a mostly anti-Bush forum. This thread proves otherwise.:laugh:
Click to expand...

That has a lot to do with education, people on this forum are generally well educated, intelligent, and are passionate about the topics. This inherently makes them anti-Bush on a lot of issues.

:beer:
 
Originally posted by: tweaker2
A Possible Reason....

"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)

"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports)."
Click to expand...

afaik Iran has setup their own system that uses the Euro as the currency and has been since I believe April of 2005.



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

Well considering how he's performed as President how can anybody be Pro Bush?
 
"We fight them there, so we don't fight them here"

"We will stand down when they stand up"

"We are spreading freedom and democracy"

"We are getting rid of a dangerous dictator with WMDs"


Pick your bumper sticker.
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...


You seem very sure of yourself on that point. Since we are currently on the one step forward, two steps back plan, I fail to see how this will come to fruition.
 
Originally posted by: ayabe
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?
Click to expand...


You seem very sure of yourself on that point. Since we are currently on the one step forward, two steps back plan, I fail to see how this will come to fruition.
Click to expand...

lack of support in our own nation doesnt help...
 
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?
Click to expand...

They said we could, even though we're the strongest military, that if we don't do something quickly, we don't have a clearer vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration
 
Originally posted by: outriding
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?
Click to expand...

They said we could, even though we're the strongest military, that if we don't do something quickly, we don't have a clearer vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration
Click to expand...

ok, so he sometimes needs a translator.. now that i've cleared it up for you, what about it do you not get? 🙂
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: outriding
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?
Click to expand...

They said we could, even though we're the strongest military, that if we don't do something quickly, we don't have a clearer vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration
Click to expand...

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



Well if you can speak Dubya translate it then.


if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road.
Click to expand...

That section would be fine.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: ayabe
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?
Click to expand...


You seem very sure of yourself on that point. Since we are currently on the one step forward, two steps back plan, I fail to see how this will come to fruition.
Click to expand...

lack of support in our own nation doesnt help...
Click to expand...

Dissent = disloyalty, FTL :roll:
 
Why? To liberate the Iraqi people you dope! Arabs need Americans to tell them what to do. Don't you watch the news?😕
 
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: outriding
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?
Click to expand...

They said we could, even though we're the strongest military, that if we don't do something quickly, we don't have a clearer vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration
Click to expand...

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

Well if you can speak Dubya translate it then.

if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road.
Click to expand...

That section would be fine.
Click to expand...

that one requires a more experienced translator... in fact, it probably requires a magic eightball as well. who the hell knows what he meant there.

but as to the issue raised in this thread, I have very clearly and succinctly drawn it out to the point where even the average elementary school student could grasp the concept: We stay in Iraq until it's safe for their government. I'm personally willing to serve and protect them until then, as are the majority of my comrades in arms.

We've had troops in Germany and Japan for over 60 years... in S. Korea for over 50... in the Sinai for more than 25... and in Kosovo for 8...

Iraq? a 3 whole years and counting... so be it.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Yeah, That sums it up pretty well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top