Mission Accomplished

[Minnesota]

[attachment=1]

Three years later, debate rages

Three years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, bodies of civilians turn up daily; at least 2,314 U.S. military personnel have died; elections have been held, but a government hasn't been formed; and officials from Iraq and the United States are debating whether the county is in a civil war.

source

[attachment=2]

Nice going, Prez!

[anthrogirl]

Calling this "Mission Accomplished" is like leaving post-war Germany in a lurch.



ag

[Yakkity Yak]

Three years later, debate rages

Get real, we're there to stay for awhile. Causalities have been remarkably low for a three year conflict. (I predicted higher in the first few weeks.) Bush mentioned "Mission Accomplished" on an Aircraft Carrier that had not seen home port in over one year, and that was one context. The second was the end of the attack on Baghdad. (That's not to say that who ever hung the banner won points for Political staging.)

Deal with it, this is an over used spin job from the Moonbat left.

My bet is, you buy the MSN meme that we’re in a Civil War? And………..

More on "Civil War" in Iraq

The meaning of civil war, and political and military developments in Iraq

With the advent of the three year ‘anniversary’ of the liberation of Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the common headline has switched from an indomitable insurgency to impending civil war, if not an existing civil war. Richard Hernandez looks at the issue in detail, and postulates “the shift of meme from the "insurgency" to a "civil war" is a backhanded way of admitting the military defeat of the insurgency without abandoning the characterization of Iraq is an American fiasco.” We believe there is merit to this argument.

While the term ‘civil war’ is thrown around with little thought of the meaning it communicates, there has been little effort to define exactly what a civil war is. The definition supplied by Wikipedia highlights the reasons for some of the confusion in the usage of the term, as there are two schools of thought on this subject, and the definition is quite vague:

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power. As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion, ethnicity, or distribution of wealth. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not). In simple terms, a Civil War is a war in which a country fights another part of itself.

http://billroggio.com

[Pitchforkpat]

Nice OP Minn. You know how to stir things up.

Causalities have been remarkably low for a three year conflict.

Well YY, US soldiers continue to be killed at the average rate of over 2 per day, every day. This has been goind on for well over two years now. This supposedly after the mission had been accomplished. For how many more years will you be content to have young Americans killed at over 2 per day? Do you call this a success?

I’d like to know from you what the mission actually is at this point and when you think it might be accomplished. Is it to bring democracy? Do you really think they have democracy now? Do you think it will work and will last?

While the term ‘civil war’ is thrown around with little thought of the meaning it communicates

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power. As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion, ethnicity, or distribution of wealth.

Well what’s going on seems to at least resemble a low level civil war by this definition. I think the media’s been pretty responsible on this one often calling it sectarian violence, which seems reasonable to me. What would you call it as a matter of interest?

I seem to remember a White House official stating that the expected cost to the American tax payer would be 1.7 billion. 3 years later, how dumb does that sound?

[ice_eagle]

Calling this "Mission Accomplished" is like leaving post-war Germany in a lurch.

Actually, that's what Rumsfeld said recently:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsar...ELD.xml&rpc=22

And yet people are insisting that we all agree on an exact timeline for withdrawal. We should have learned our lesson about evil regimes rising out of the ashes of war. That is, after all, how the Nazis and Hitler came to power after WWI. This is a problem that we must all deal with, no matter what we all believe about the necessity (or lack thereof) of the Iraq war.

[Minnesota]

Well what’s going on seems to at least resemble a low level civil war by this definition.

It certainly is.

"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," former interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi told British Broadcasting Corp. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

source

I seem to remember a White House official stating that the expected cost to the American tax payer would be 1.7 billion. 3 years later, how dumb does that sound?

At least 2,314 U.S. military personnel have died in the war, which is estimated to have cost $200 billion to $250 billion so far. President Bush says about 30,000 Iraqis have been killed; others put the toll far higher.

source

Think 200-250 billion dollars and the lives of 2,314 military personnel could have been better utilized? ABSOLUTELY! Although Yakkity Yak evidently thinks this has been a wise investment and acceptable loss of life. Conservative chowder heads of the United State Unite !

[The Laughing Man]

It certainly is.

"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," former interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi told British Broadcasting Corp. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

source

Terrorist attacks and violence (sectarian or otherwise) caused by them are not civil war.

At least 2,314 U.S. military personnel have died in the war, which is estimated to have cost $200 billion to $250 billion so far. President Bush says about 30,000 Iraqis have been killed; others put the toll far higher.

source

Think 200-250 billion dollars and the lives of 2,314 military personnel could have been better utilized? ABSOLUTELY! Although Yakkity Yak evidently thinks this has been a wise investment and acceptable loss of life. Conservative chowder heads of the United State Unite !

Define "acceptable loss of life." 2000? 1000? 100? 10?

The loss of ONE life is not acceptable, PW, but that is war. It's tragic, but what is the alternative? More mass graves of Iraqi civilians? More attacks against Israel? (Remember that? When the U.S. forced Saddam out of Kuwait, he decided to lob a few missiles at Israel. Does that seem like someone who isn't a threat to the world?) Yes, over 2300 military personnel have died, but how many innocent civilians does that translate into? They died fighting monsters. They died with the ability to fight back. They died with weapons in their hands. How many defenseless innocents died under Saddam with only their children in their hands? As it stands, in this day and age, 2300 lives over 3 years is pretty dang low. How many military personnel died in World War II? World War I? The Revolutionary War? Thousands and tens of thousands each. Should we have not fought those wars?

See, people like you don't actually care about the people who've died. All you care about is having a talking point against President Bush. All you care about is having another cardboard coffin to carry around. All you care about is having another emotionally unstable mother to vomit up your rhetoric. It's obvious and disgusting.

[Yakkity Yak]

It certainly is.

"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," former interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi told British Broadcasting Corp. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

source

Real civil war would have Shi'ites and Sunnis falling out of the army in pitched camps and battles. Got it? The media (MSM) is proven wrong again.

More on "Civil War" in Iraq

The meaning of civil war, and political and military developments in Iraq

With the advent of the three year ‘anniversary’ of the liberation of Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the common headline has switched from an indomitable insurgency to impending civil war, if not an existing civil war. Richard Hernandez looks at the issue in detail, and postulates “the shift of meme from the "insurgency" to a "civil war" is a backhanded way of admitting the military defeat of the insurgency without abandoning the characterization of Iraq is an American fiasco.” We believe there is merit to this argument.

While the term ‘civil war’ is thrown around with little thought of the meaning it communicates, there has been little effort to define exactly what a civil war is. The definition supplied by Wikipedia highlights the reasons for some of the confusion in the usage of the term, as there are two schools of thought on this subject, and the definition is quite vague:

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power. As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion, ethnicity, or distribution of wealth. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not). In simple terms, a Civil War is a war in which a country fights another part of itself.

http://billroggio.com

[Yakkity Yak]

Nice OP Minn. You know how to stir things up.


Well YY, US soldiers continue to be killed at the average rate of over 2 per day, every day. This has been goind on for well over two years now. This supposedly after the mission had been accomplished. For how many more years will you be content to have young Americans killed at over 2 per day? Do you call this a success?

You're confused son. Note, that all of our troops are voluteers and you can't define their service or ultimate sacrifice as "failure" in the greater picture of the conflict from beginning to end.

Quite frankly, you don't have a say in the matter. Just sit down and shut up and honor the brave men and women who have the guts and the courage to serve.

Sadly, as we watch some men and women die in the line of duty, perhaps they offer us lessons in how to live.

Here is a e-mail I received about the sorrow of loss, and the pain of losing a loved one in Iraq.

.......CBS Evening News will air a tribute to 1st. Lt. Aaron Seesan, U.S. Army, tonight Wednesday December 21st. [2005] We hope you will view it to better know the person Aaron was. We also hope that it will respectfully honor a proud and dedicated soldier who gave his life for the cause of freedom around the world (hopefully without political debate and media bias - just a simple "thank you" for giving his last measure of patriotic devotion).

We deeply miss Aaron but will try on this first Christmas without him to remember his own words:

All mortal beings, which God brought forth, die the same

Man is not exempt

All will inevitably end as the dust from whence we came

It matters not of age

Do not mourn me if I should fall in a foreign land

Think this of my passing
In a far off field a finer soil mixed with the foreign sand

A dust that is American

A dust that laughed, cried, and loved as an American

On this plot there shall be
A little piece of America, a patch for the free man

Which no oppressor can take
From this soil grows grass shimmering a little greener

Brilliant emerald ramparts

A Breeze whisking White Poppies with scent a little sweeter
Flowers towards heaven

Mourn not my terrible death but celebrate my cause in life

Viewed noble or not

I would have sacrificed and gave all that I had to give

Not to make man good

But only to let the good man live

(From Eulogy of the Common Soldier - by Aaron Seesan © MICHAEL SEESAN - 1999)

[Yakkity Yak]

Calling this "Mission Accomplished" is like leaving post-war Germany in a lurch.

ag

Just like in WW II, there have been many missions in Iraq. Indeed, many have been accomplished.

We need to press on, and take note of the hypocrites in the home camp.

Senator John Kerry:

January 2003 speech, less than four months before the war that Sen. Kerry gave at Georgetown University:

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein.

He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oilrigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.

[Yakkity Yak]

One mission accomplished, and John Kerry should be proud, as we all should be proud of our troops.

[Pitchforkpat]

You're confused son. Note, that all of our troops are voluteers and you can't define their service or ultimate sacrifice as "failure" in the greater picture of the conflict from beginning to end.

No, apparently you’re confused about how to respond to posts. I asked you a few questions, none of which you bothered to answer and I can guess why. I’ll state them again and let’s see if you’re capable of actually discussing the matter instead of posting the following imbecilic rant:

Quite frankly, you don't have a say in the matter. Just sit down and shut up and honor the brave men and women who have the guts and the courage to serve.

And actually I do have a say in the matter. My activity, along with the activity of like-minded Canadians was part of the reason the Liberal government felt safe in taking the moral high ground not toadying to the ignorant little Bush, like Tony Blair did. I can and will continue to participate in protests which will be seen on US news like this weekend and will hopefully continue to contribute to the continuing decline in support for the twit you call a president.

And there’s nothing to stop the protesters in your own country from honoring the courage of those soldiers, while telling their sorry embarrassment of a 'leader' that he’s botched the whole thing.

Now sit down, take a deep breath and see if you can actually answer the following questions which you tellingly ignored before:

1.What is the point of the mission and when do you think it might be accomplished?

2.Do you really think Iraq has a functioning democracy now?

3.Do you think it will work and that it will last?

4.For how many more years are you prepared to tolerate American soldiers being killed at the average of over 2 per day?