|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
|
[Poll]
|
War in Iraq
|
| We are in Iraq because of oil |
|
| We are in Iraq to liberate the less fortunate |
|
| We are in Iraq to protect Israel |
|
| We are in Iraq to stop terrorists |
|
| We are in Iraq for some other reason |
|
Total Votes : 437
|
(last vote on : 11/22/2008 7:44:58 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
|
|
Login  | |
|
Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign - 5/1/2008 1:50:42 PM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 1935
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: online
|
Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign
WASHINGTON - The White House said Wednesday that President Bush has paid a price for the “Mission Accomplished” banner that was flown in triumph five years ago but later became a symbol of U.S. misjudgments and mistakes in the long and costly war in Iraq.
Thursday is the fifth anniversary of Bush’s dramatic landing in a Navy jet on an aircraft carrier homebound from the war. The USS Abraham Lincoln had launched thousands of airstrikes on Iraq.
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” Bush said at the time. “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on.” The “Mission Accomplished” banner was prominently displayed above him — a move the White House came to regret as the display was mocked and became a source of controversy.
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign - 5/1/2008 2:11:43 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3961
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheoCentric
Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign
WASHINGTON - The White House said Wednesday that President Bush has paid a price for the “Mission Accomplished” banner that was flown in triumph five years ago but later became a symbol of U.S. misjudgments and mistakes in the long and costly war in Iraq.
Thursday is the fifth anniversary of Bush’s dramatic landing in a Navy jet on an aircraft carrier homebound from the war. The USS Abraham Lincoln had launched thousands of airstrikes on Iraq.
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” Bush said at the time. “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on.” The “Mission Accomplished” banner was prominently displayed above him — a move the White House came to regret as the display was mocked and became a source of controversy.
In case anyone has missed it, This is now the second longest war in US history. Congratulations, Mr. President.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign - 5/1/2008 2:24:49 PM
|
|
|
RichLP
Posts: 1580
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
“... major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed... And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country... In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world... Because of you our nation is more secure...”
- I gotta say this is clever; it never hurts a politician to publicly praise the work of US military personnel
“In the images of fallen statues we have witnessed the arrival of a new era...”
- That statue of Saddam Hussein was removed by our forces during a staged event in the presence of a small number of Iraqis, but the media’s close-ups didn’t display that.
“In defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, Allied forces destroyed entire cities, while enemy leaders who started the conflict were safe until the final days. Military power was used to end a regime by breaking a nation. Today we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians...”
- What an egregious lie. American military action has caused the deaths of dozens of thousands of Iraqis, and the city of Fallujah suffered much destruction; and, Fallujah is far from alone in being damaged by US bombing. What is more revolting – the falsehoods within these statements or Bush’s attempt to paint aggression as humanitarian work?
“We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.”
- Before the invasion, those sites were under investigation; nothing was found. Bush himself withdrew the inspectors and initiate the war. And, nothing was ever found. EVER.
“Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.”
- And that will happen in 20XX????
“In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban...”
- Oh, and that’s why Karzai nearly got killed a few days ago?
“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding.”
- You mean step backwards, mr. President; we lost resources that were useful in Afghanistan to put them in Iraq. No collaborative partnership between Iraq and al-Qaeda was ever found. Why didn’t you allow the results of the review of more than 600,000 Baath-era documents to be freely available to the public? While Americans can get a copy if they request it, why can’t they just attain them online as other government reports – the edited versions of course – have been?
“We are committed to freedom in Afghanistan, Iraq and in a peaceful Palestine...”
- Cynicism nearly makes me laugh at this, but them I remember the horrifying pain Iraqi and Palestinian civilians have suffered – something you, son of a Texas oil man who know nothing about suffering, could never understand (and which only arrogant, self-righteous, ignorant Americans who actually believe you could be sufficiently naïve to accept these statements as true)
_____________________________
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda" - G.W. Bush lies to America and to the world, 5/1/2003
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign - 5/1/2008 6:35:23 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2168
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Mr. President, I have sinned against thee. Good grief.
Librul. :P
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign - 5/2/2008 1:19:39 AM
|
|
|
wing2000
Posts: 1027
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
After shifting explanations, the White House eventually said the “Mission Accomplished” phrase referred to the carrier’s crew completing its 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq.
...and that's why the POTUS of the United States landed on that carrier....to congratulate the crew. How stupid of me to think otherwise!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign - 5/2/2008 7:49:51 AM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2168
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
This is from Sanchez' book "Wiser in Battle":
quote:
To say I was shocked would be an understatement. I had never seen any approved CENTCOM campaign plan, either conceptual or detailed, for the post�major combat operations phase. When I was on the ground in Iraq and saw what was going on, I assumed they had done zero Phase IV planning. Now, three years later, I was learning for the first time that my assumption was not completely accurate. In fact, CENTCOM had originally called for twelve to eighteen months of Phase IV activity with active troop deployments. But then CENTCOM had completely walked away by simply stating that the war was over and Phase IV was not their job.
That decision set up the United States for a failed first year in Iraq. There is no question about it. And I was supposed to believe that neither the Secretary of Defense nor anybody above him knew anything about it? Impossible! Rumsfeld knew about it. Everybody on the NSC knew about it, including Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and Colin Powell. Vice President Cheney knew about it. And President Bush knew about it.
There's not a doubt in my mind that they all embraced this decision to some degree. And if it had not been for the moral courage of Gen. John Abizaid to stand up to them all and reverse Franks's troop drawdown order, there's no telling how much more damage would have been done.
In the meantime, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars were unnecessarily spent, and worse yet, too many of our most precious military resource, our American soldiers, were unnecessarily wounded, maimed, and killed as a result. In my mind, this action by the Bush administration amounts to gross incompetence and dereliction of duty.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1736831-1,00.html
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign - 5/2/2008 9:30:36 AM
|
|
|
wing2000
Posts: 1027
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
In fact, CENTCOM had originally called for twelve to eighteen months of Phase IV activity with active troop deployments. But then CENTCOM had completely walked away by simply stating that the war was over and Phase IV was not their job.
Yes...and we all recall Rumsfeld's news conference where he stated "we" are not responsible for Iraqi security. That man owes our entire military an apology.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign - 5/2/2008 12:19:51 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2168
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yes...and we all recall Rumsfeld's news conference where he stated "we" are not responsible for Iraqi security. That man owes our entire military an apology.
I don't remember that. I do remember everyone telling us how we were responsible and how it was our responsibility to "stay the course" until the mission was finished and how we were going to help Iraq from the moment of Saddam's fall indefinately. Remember also that such a decision went all the way to the top.
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign - 5/7/2008 2:35:27 PM
|
|
|
RichLP
Posts: 1580
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
3500 US troops are being pulled out from Iraq.
This news article further states that 'the pullout is in line with US President George W. Bush's plan announced in September to complete the withdrawal of the 30,000 extra troops he poured in last year to curb an increase in sectarian violence in Iraq.'
So, while these extra troops did help in lowering, but not permanently ending, the sectarian violence in Iraq, their gradual withdrawal has also seen an increase of Iraqi civilian deaths.
Which shows one thing... the Iraqi forces are not ready to police their own country. And, while I do not advocate a quick withdrawal (which some prowar Crosswalkers assail as the Democrat stance), it does lead me to wonder when if ever we will get out AND leave behind a competent force.
Surge = escalation. Iraqi stand up, we stand down = Vietnamization.
We lost in Vietnam, and we're going to lose in Iraq.
thanks for nothing, Mr. Bush and neoCONs.
_____________________________
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda" - G.W. Bush lies to America and to the world, 5/1/2003
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign - 5/12/2008 8:46:26 AM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2168
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
It seems what some here in the US is calling "freedom and a better life in Iraq" is called a humanitarian crisis by others:
quote:
"We will not be able to help hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable Iraqi refugees and internally displaced if we do not receive funding for the remainder of 2008," said Antonio Guterres, U.N. high commissioner for refugees.
"Without this support, the humanitarian crisis we have faced over the past two years may grow even larger," Guterres said.
It seems that the UNCHR (UN High Commissioner for Refugees) who is under the very same UN that we went into this war for in the first place says there has been an Iraqi refugee crisis for the past 2 years and it looks to get worse.
I just wanted to clear up all the misinformation about what has been going on over there for the last 2 years.
Sorry guys, forgot the source:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/09/iraq.main/index.html
< Message edited by rlj -- 5/12/2008 6:29:07 PM >
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign - 5/12/2008 9:46:45 AM
|
|
|
RichLP
Posts: 1580
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
A new day, a new week, and there are no changes in this discussion thread; the pro-war/pro-Bush administration folks who participate in this website are silent as the Iraqi quagmire muddles on without an improved security situation.
I do thank RLJ for this grim reminder of the hellish realities that have become part of the daily live of "liberated" Iraq.
And, since Iraq was and is, as per what our presidential administration tells us, a central front in the war on terror (despite the non-existence of a collaborative partnership between the Baath and al-Qaeda... 600,000 captured and translated Baath documents tell us so), maybe it might be useful to see how Iraq is playing a role in the war on terror.
A role GENERATING terror, that is - a role it never played before.
"It showed that the war is breeding violent insurgent cells across the Arab world. Some of these insurgents intend to join the fight against the United States in Iraq. Other extremists, trained in Iraq, are taking up arms and recruiting suicide bombers to attack their own governments back home."
_____________________________
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda" - G.W. Bush lies to America and to the world, 5/1/2003
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign - 5/12/2008 11:06:58 AM
|
|
|
stamper_ben
Posts: 10959
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lone Star State
Status: offline
|
Taunting the opposition of one's point of view....
Now that's the way to encourage discussion! 
_____________________________
We will be known as His by the love we show one another.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign - 5/12/2008 11:10:16 AM
|
|
|
RichLP
Posts: 1580
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
One thing I've noticed here in the Iraq war thread is that the worse things got in Iraq, the less frequently did pro-Iraq war/pro-Bush people write.
If things really were going that well in Iraq, those who supported the invasion, the policies carried out by the occupation, or the ostensibly positive results in post-Saddam Iraq, then perhaps these folks would write more often.
But, as in recent time it's mostly been critics of the war who've participated, I speculate that the dire situation in Iraq on many fronts - security, utilities, and political peace - hasn't gotten better.
It's going to be an ugly situation there for some time to come, regardless of who George W. Bush's successor is. And sadly, I don't think we'll see any developments - not enough of them anyhow - to prod pro-war Crosswalkers to post here more often.
_____________________________
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda" - G.W. Bush lies to America and to the world, 5/1/2003
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign - 5/13/2008 11:53:25 AM
|
|
|
Leon_Figg3
Posts: 476
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
|
RichLP.
I quess it's time for you and I to lock horns once again-briefly. I just can't let you get away claiming (or seeming to claim) that pro-war writers contribute based on which way the conflict in Iraq seems/ "is reported" as going. If anything, I tend to believe that some people make a decision to contribute based on past experiences in trying to discuss issues with others.
Is it worth the time, effort and bother to try to discuss an issue with someone who has already made up his mind about an issue based on what he percieves as being the truth?
There are posters on this thread, and others, who have made up their mind about issues largely based on their view of America and the world. They tend to believe they have all the "facts" that they need to make judgements about what is going on, why, and who is responsible. There are others who seem to have time to do some research. Others simply face the fact that we do not know what all is going on, or why, and probably never will. What is done is done, and it is now up to history to judge if the people at all levels of power (in America) made the right decisions or not-without all the political double talk and game-manship.
The fact for us, today, is that we are in Iraq, and despite how, or why we got there, we now have a responsibility to those people, whether we like it or not, for however long it takes for stabilize the situation.
Yes, part of the problem is that there are Iraqis who do not want us there, but then it becomes part of their responsibilty as well as ours to make sure our stay there is as short as possible. Instead of fighting us they need to find a way to work with us, and us with them.
Another thing to consider is the fact that it is part of being a dissedent to be more vocal than those who may be more concerned with getting through their life and trying to make a difference where they are at, than sharing their opinion.
_____________________________
To whom much is given, much is expected. Luke 12:48
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign - 5/13/2008 12:24:21 PM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3
RichLP.
I quess it's time for you and I to lock horns once again-briefly. I just can't let you get away claiming (or seeming to claim) that pro-war writers contribute based on which way the conflict in Iraq seems/ "is reported" as going. If anything, I tend to believe that some people make a decision to contribute based on past experiences in trying to discuss issues with others.
Is it worth the time, effort and bother to try to discuss an issue with someone who has already made up his mind about an issue based on what he percieves as being the truth?
There are posters on this thread, and others, who have made up their mind about issues largely based on their view of America and the world. They tend to believe they have all the "facts" that they need to make judgements about what is going on, why, and who is responsible. There are others who seem to have time to do some research. Others simply face the fact that we do not know what all is going on, or why, and probably never will. What is done is done, and it is now up to history to judge if the people at all levels of power (in America) made the right decisions or not-without all the political double talk and game-manship.
The fact for us, today, is that we are in Iraq, and despite how, or why we got there, we now have a responsibility to those people, whether we like it or not, for however long it takes for stabilize the situation.
Yes, part of the problem is that there are Iraqis who do not want us there, but then it becomes part of their responsibilty as well as ours to make sure our stay there is as short as possible. Instead of fighting us they need to find a way to work with us, and us with them.
Another thing to consider is the fact that it is part of being a dissedent to be more vocal than those who may be more concerned with getting through their life and trying to make a difference where they are at, than sharing their opinion.
Looking back it's fairly clear that we didn't make the right decision by going into Iraq. We didn't make the right decision in involving a group like Blackwater in the process either.
You are correct in that there is a degree of responsibility to be had but I'm not sure that the onus is completely on us (no pun intended). The Iraqi people have the lion's share of responsibility in this. It's their country not ours. We can only do so much unless we just take over and make the fledgling nation a protectorate of the United States, which would a disaster as well.
Our soldiers don't want to be there (something I know from having talked to an irrefutable source, and no I won't say who). The Iraqi people don't want us there. The Prime Minister wants us to make our stay a lot shorter than the President wants it to be. I recall that Jesus said that if it was made clear that we (as Christians) weren't wanted somewhere then we were to leave before the dust settled on our sandals. It seems to me that this would be a good thing to follow in this case as well.
I'll be honest. In the beginning I did support the war in Iraq. I was glad when Saddam Hussein was caught and put on trial. He was an evil man and that evil finally caught up with him. However seeing where our soldiers are now and the price that they're paying for going into Iraq I wonder if it was worth the cost.
There are so many things that have been botched up in the war that I think it's pretty much irrecoverable at this point. We can't continue what we're doing and expect to succeed. With 43,000 soldiers classified as medically unfit to serve having been sent back we're only perpetuating the mistreatment of our soldiers. It is a sad day when mercenaries, like those who work for Blackwater, get better treatment from the government than the men and women who put their lives on the line because they think it's the right thing to do.
Shame on the administration for doing it and shame on us all for allowing this travesty to continue.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign - 5/13/2008 12:57:24 PM
|
|
|
RichLP
Posts: 1580
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3
Is it worth the time, effort and bother to try to discuss an issue with someone who has already made up his mind about an issue based on what he percieves as being the truth?
Hello, Leon_Figg3.
I did read the rest of your post to me, and while I will try to address what you said, let me tackle this quoted part first.
It's not what I perceive as being the truth.
IT IS THE TRUTH!
Sectarian violence on a massive scale. Utilities down. Kidnappings. Rise of Islamic militancy. Need I go on?
If I am "harping" on these unpleasant facts about the Iraqi quagmire, it's because perhaps they're not covered enough. We were told about how much better it'd be, democracy, freedom, etc. Iraqis have less electricity now than they did under Saddam Hussein. Now, I don't know from experience, but Iraqi summers are supposedly pretty hot. I'd hate to have to go through such a summer without a working air conditioner.
Our government botched the occupation terribly. In the CPA and in its predecessor there were well-meaning, hardworking Americans who tried their darndest to help out the Iraqis. And, the Iraqis (though they are a diverse, complex people) did not always help us HELP THEM. But this is not going well.
And it's what I said earlier. In the first days of the post-Saddam Iraq days, people who supported the war gushed about the upcoming democracy, about how freedom would ring, about how much better Iraq would be; and, all those Americans who opposed the war or criticized the Bush administration were liberal leftist communist atheist heathen Hussein-loving pro-Osama loonies.
And then, the worse things got, I noticed people couldn't even defend the occupation anymore. Abu Gharib. The civilian deaths during the Fallujah offensive. More and more and more horrible foul-ups, ugly developments.
It's not what I perceive to be truth. It's the reality over there.
_____________________________
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda" - G.W. Bush lies to America and to the world, 5/1/2003
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign - 5/14/2008 12:00:20 AM
|
|
|
Leon_Figg3
Posts: 476
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
|
I quess my point, my arguement about one's "perceived truth" deals with the fact that if you see issues from only one point of view, to the point of ignoring and poo-pooing any information from the opposite point of view, you are not telling the complete story, hence, you do not have the whole stpry, or the whole "truth"
As a consequence, if you can not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt your claims about something, then you do not have the "the truth" you just have your perception (or someone else's perception) of a given situation.
I will venture to say that unless you are writing from everywhere (Iraq. Washington DC, Iran, Syria, Pakistan,etc) and have direct knowledge about everything concerning Iraq, you do not have the complete story/ the complete "truth".
Truth can be elusive especially in politics and foreign affairs when and where everything is not always what it seems to be.
People complain and complain about the how we-the Bush administration-have botched this conflict and our "occupation" of Iraq. Look at some history. Mistakes are always being made in war, and hardly anyone is prepared for it, and it's aftermath, except the one that sets the stage that makes conflict unavoidable. The fact that mistakes were made, and the situation becomes and is difficult (uncomfortabale for us and our people) does not just justify abandoning the people caught in the middle.
Now, abandoning the people of Viet Nam may have been an acceptable trade off in the 1970's for getting out of an unpopular conflict. That act did not come without a cost, a cost we and the rest of the world our still paying. Abandoning the people of Iraq may very well have an equally high, or higher price tag for years to come.
< Message edited by Leon_Figg3 -- 5/14/2008 12:47:11 AM >
_____________________________
To whom much is given, much is expected. Luke 12:48
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign - 5/14/2008 1:12:40 AM
|
|
|
wing2000
Posts: 1027
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
People complain and complain about the how we-the Bush administration-have botched this conflict and our "occupation" of Iraq. Look at some history. Mistakes are always being made in war, and hardly anyone is prepared for it, and it's aftermath, except the one that sets the stage that makes conflict unavoidable. The fact that mistakes were made, and the situation becomes and is difficult (uncomfortabale for us and our people) does not just justify abandoning the people caught in the middle.
Many of the mistakes were preventable. Indeed this administration was warned by CIA, the State Department and even the Army Chief of Staff that we were essentially unprepared to occupy Iraq. The timing to attack Iraq was decided by the POTUS (this was a war of choice). So while I certainly agree mistakes occur in the midst of battle, the type of mistakes made by this administration were avoidable. To take just one example (of many): the decision to disband the Iraqi army...sending millions of armed men into the country side with little prospect of gainful employment.
As we move six years into this conflict, it is time we put all Iraqi's on notice (including those "in the middle") that we will leave sooner rather than later. Our SOLIDERS should not have to pay for the strategic mistakes of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. If John McCain becomes President and we are going to stay for decades, then we owe it to our armed forces to increase the size of our overall ground forces by at least three times (troops serving 3, 4 tours of duty is uncoscienable). It is also time we the citizens actually start sacrificing to PAY for this war...but I suppose even the "straight talking" John McCain is not willing to bring that message to the electorate.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
Good grief. 
