0
   

Mission Accomplished!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 11:40 am
This is the third anniversary of Bush's dress up event. It would be hilarious if not tragic.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,474 • Replies: 70
No top replies

 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 11:46 am
http://www.christianiraq.com/photos/0505/voa/voa0520.jpg

Yup. Mission Accomplished.

Now if those pesky insurgents would just surrender, the Peace can be accomplished.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:00 pm
Yes, the fact that a war is difficult is certainly sufficient reason not to undertake it. Of course, all of the wars in history have been quick and clean.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:04 pm
....and necessary, of course.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:10 pm
...and just. Don't forget just.

At least, for the winner...
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:19 pm
Oh, Roxxxanne... where do you get these silly ideas of yours?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:37 pm
http://www.kwhitaker.com/mission_accomplished.jpg

Quote:
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html

*
Quote:
2260 US soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq since major combat was declared over by George W. Bush May 1, 2003.
Conservative estimate of US wounded is 18000.


http://www.newshounds.us/war_dead_injured/
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:39 pm
From the quote:

"And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country"

I don't see that has changed. Are you suggesting otherwise?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:41 pm
blacksmithn wrote:
...and just. Don't forget just.

At least, for the winner...

Of course, failure to verifiably comply with his Gulf War 1 surrender treaty after 12 years does not justify enforcement of said treaty on that paragon of virtue and innocence, Saddam Hussein.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:44 pm
That green zone is ALMOST secure at this point, down to one or two attacks a week on it. Pretty soon we can start on the rest of the country.

I didn't realize that securing and reconstruction cost more in lives than major combat operations. Maybe we shouldn't have ended major combat. It might have been cheaper in dollars and lives to continue with combat.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:52 pm
McGentrix wrote:
From the quote:

"And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country"

I don't see that has changed. Are you suggesting otherwise?


We have failed to secure Iraq, all we did was scatter the enemy into hiding and they have been fighting us ever since. Look at how many people have died since then on both sides. Major combat has not been over since he uttered those stupid words.

As for the reconstuction:

U.S. Has End in Sight on Iraq Rebuilding

Even if he had been sucessful, I would have still been against the war for the simple reason that we were never in any direct danger from Iraq, but everything since then has only proved all the anti Iraq war people right. So we got Saddam Hussien, there are a lot of other "evil" dictators in the world. We are not the world's police, judge and jurry and I wish we would refrain from acting like it.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 01:05 pm
I appreciate your position and understand your feelings. I just hold a different opinion about it.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 01:07 pm
fight fight kill kill it's justified it's justified... just don't expect me to get my hands dirty... right fellas? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 01:16 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
fight fight kill kill it's justified it's justified... just don't expect me to get my hands dirty... right fellas? Laughing

Of course, in the early 40s, anyone believing that WW2 was justified was obligated to immediately join the military. Every argument in favor of WW2 was incorrect if the speaker was not in the army.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 01:19 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
fight fight kill kill it's justified it's justified... just don't expect me to get my hands dirty... right fellas? Laughing

Of course, in the early 40s, anyone believing that WW2 was justified was obligated to immediately join the military. Every argument in favor of WW2 was incorrect if the speaker was not in the army.


good to know.... your point? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 01:20 pm
Funny, I wondered the same thing...
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 01:23 pm
I believe his point is that it's okay for him to advocate sending others to fight and die in his stead because he would've done the same thing in the 1940s.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 01:26 pm
Isn't that a soldiers job? Why else would have a standing army?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 01:57 pm
blacksmithn wrote:
I believe his point is that it's okay for him to advocate sending others to fight and die in his stead because he would've done the same thing in the 1940s.

My point is that the citizens of a country will often have an opinion that this war is justified, but that one is not, and that having the opinion that some war is justified in no way obligates the person to rush off and enlist. Also, the fact that someone believes that a war is necessary, but is not himself in the army, does not constitute immoral conduct. In short, the whole line of argument, of which BVT's post is typical, is baloney.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 02:00 pm
I think Brandon just reassured himself about something that may have been bothering him...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Mission Accomplished!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 07:55:08