No I mean the majority of Americans. Most Polls are constructed with an error of + or - 3% and the polls indicate the error rate of the poll.

No I mean the majority of Americans. Most Polls are constructed with an error of + or - 3% and the polls indicate the error rate of the poll.

Wrong again col. You cannot base the feelings of millions of Americans based on media poll of 1000 people. I have already showed you how they poll more democrats than republicans, the polls are biased to begin with.

There is a cost to every war. There is a cost a country must hide from itself to convince it’s public the sacrifice is not too great and that the benefit of going to war is much greater. Sometimes that war is considered won when the cost is at least met by it’s success, most often, it is seen as Pyhrrical, or lost when the remaining public look back years later and realize once and for all, much too late, that the cost far outweighed the sought-after goal. In Iraq, which resembles more Vietnam then World War II; Americans are beginning to rouse themselves from idealistic daydreaming to rude awakening. We were told the Iraqi’s would meet us with open arms as liberators yet we have a ragtag insurgency faceless and nameless killing our family members and friends.

The figure of American casualties is actually extremely low compared to numbers in other wars, yet, the majority of Americans have shifted against the war, now much more cognizant of the cost – as small to some as those numbers may seem. Apparently, one significant friend or relative is not worth one Iraqi life, let alone a country of them. Eventually, the cost of the war; projected to double the federal deficit over a period of ten years will also not allow Americans to concede that feeding, clothing, freeing, or otherwise occupying Iraq is worth denying American seniors pharmaceutical health benefits, young Americans quality education, or even, gasp!, wealthy Americans fat contracting bids to keep our highway infrastructure intact or our military at current spending levels.

Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfield, admitted June 27, 2005, that the insurgency could continue on for as long as twelve years. Because we entered this war with no exit strategy; without an outline determining accomplished goals and a timetable determining our exit from Iraq upon accomplishing those goals, I have only to suspect that Mr. Rumsfield as well as those who support him expect Americans to continue burdenship to an open-ended commitment in occupying Iraq until, at least, insurgents are suppressed to the point that someone or some group determines MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Now, Leuki, if I told you we were to stay in Iraq for five years you may tell me it isn’t going to happen. If I told you that we would continue to pay costs in Iraq and sacrifice countless man hours and deaths in Iraq for TEN YEARS you might tell me it’s not going to happen. "Undefined victory is imminent," you may even suggest. But if I told you that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield hinted that our continued involvement in Iraq was possible for twelve (12!) years you might say,”Whatever it takes.”

That’s very noble of you – noble to the tune of approximately $450 billion dollars. That is in addition to the $314 billion dollars we have already spent. These numbers are from the Congressional Budget Office. Our government is telling you that, total, you wish to spend $764 Billion dollars to insure that Iraqi’s INSTEAD of AMERICANS are taken care of. The cost even Republicans such as Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska protested, who said that costs of the war -- many multiples greater than what the White House had estimated in 2003 -- are throwing U.S. fiscal priorities out of balance.

We will spend $1.5 billion building an embassy in Iraq. You may say that embassy will one day pay for itself, but why not allow the Iraqi government to pay for it through war reparations? Oh yeah, because our government has already offered to forgive all war debt – no reparations will be made. The cost of the war will not be aided by the Iraqi people though it is our hands that have supposedly lifted them up.

$1.5 billion could have been a down payment on the future of the youth of America for their higher education via Fafsa grants or relieved senior citizens of the high costs of their pharmaceutical drug needs, but instead you want to put their needs down and picked up by people whom we are likely to see no return.

As you are well aware of Leuki, the Middle East is not Germany, nor is it France, and as I have mentioned, the Iraq war is not comparable to World War II. You may make a very poor argument that it is, but a less flimsy and much more believable argument will be made that Vietnam holds closer parallels to Iraq.

Now to address why you specifically target the Iraqi people with all your empathy and love. There are many unfortunate people in the world living under brutal dictators, there are many countries that have invaded their neighbors, there are many people in the world suffering human rights abuses but your compassion does not seem to extend to them by any demand the United States invade their countries or relieve them of their oppressors.

You are mute in regards to people in North Korea living under similar circumstances under a ruthless dictator also purported to have weapons of mass destruction but you do not express your moral outrage or cringe for security there.

You do not nobly demand the United States ride in and free Tibet from it’s occupying and oppressive neighbor China – you do not even muster a typed word for those in the Burma.

The people of Darfur (specifically the Fur, Masaalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups) in Sudan were and are being systematically cleansed from the face of the earth by their own government militias in Africa.

You ignore the desperate pleas for help for those in Uzbekistan where thousands of protestors were indiscriminately fired upon by ‘security forces’ from their own government while many of the rest remain in internment suffering torture. Why have you been so selective in focusing upon the Iraqi people exclusively?

Were you so adamant about Slobodon Milosovich and his genocide in the nineties?

You can easily say now, that yes, you are concerned, but when I broached the subject in post #39 in paragraph three, sentence two you gave not a peep.

This is a curious, but heartfelt confirmation to the Iraqi people (and those Germans who suffered at the hands of the Nazis) of your commitment to their exclusive well-being. Something I think all Iraqi people would stand and applaud to if it were not for the depleted uranium our weapons contain affecting their children and tainting their health for generations to come.

May it be understood that depleted uranium shields and hardens our bullets and ‘bunker busters’ used to great extent throughout the Iraq war, in fact, almost trumpeted as elements of our weapons; harbingers of American might and superiority in the much hurrahed Operation Shock and Awe.

“even a tiny particle of DU can have disastrous results once ingested, including various cancers and degenerative diseases, paralysis, birth deformities and death.”

Okay, so that’s not so bad, we did our thing to rid Saddam and his forces that readily and eagerly surrendered to our valiant troops, but what is the human cost? Is the reign of a 67 year old dictator as damaging as depleted uranium? Depleted Uranium is to Baghdad as the bomb was to Hiroshima, or Agent Orange was to those in Saigon. Depleted Uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, meaning it takes that long for just half of its atoms to decay.

“The radiation released through DU use in conflicts is believed to be more than ten times the amount dispersed by atmospheric testing. According to Terry Jemison at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), of the more than 592,560 discharged personnel who served in the 1990-91 Gulf war, at least 179,310 - one third - are receiving disability compensation and over 24,760 cases were pending by in September 2004. A sixth of the Iraq war veterans have already sought treatment.”

Once again, Leuki, which is more important? A secular tyrranical government by an aging dictator or the Iraqi people’s ‘liberation’ at the cost of American lives, dollars, an Islamic fundamentalist government and 4.5 billion years of Iraqi citizen’s health?

“And if you have a single argument for why it would have been BETTER for Saddam to continue slaughtering his population than for the US to attack, I ask you to tell me now.”

I don’t have a single argument, Leuki, I’ve got a myriad of them all best suited to us either totally never engaging in the war in Iraq or…wait, stopping it NOW.

After all, when do you want us to pull out? Your mad despotic dictator is gone, the people have been liberated, and America is free at last from terrorism.

· The State Department reported that the number of “significant” terrorist attacks reached a record 655 in 2004, up from 175 in 2003.

I wonder why? Sorry I couldn’t provide more up to date data to more significantly boost my argument but I’m growing tired of having to re-educate you on the state of all things real.

Now for your question, would it have been better to leave Saddam in power?

Yes - the cost of this war does not meet it’s undefined ‘benefit(s)’.

Didn't expect an answer.

As long as it isn't your coward butt being raped by Uday and/or Kusay, right Deference and Colon Gangrene?

To protest or disagree with the war is your right, to openly back the turning over of the people of Iraq to the bacteria is lower than scum. Go join the terrorists, since your allegiences are clearly with them anyway.

My allegiences are clearly in line with the best interests of the American people 'ParaTed2k'. You've failed to address any point I've made...with a counter argument, evidence, or 'hey, I, ParaTed2k, an adamant Iraq war supporter regardless of the facts recently presented to me on Joeuser.com simply disagree'.

Please, I invite you, answer with something substantive addressing the points made in post number 53.

I understand you know what's up, 'ParaTed2k' so let me know. Don't let me down.

Deference, all you did was spend a lot of time rehashing tired Democrat talking points. Prs. Bush has stated what needs to happen before we pull out of Iraq completely. He stated the reasons for a return to hostilities with Iraq before the first firemission of "Shock & Awe".

The fact of the matter is, The U.S. has made a promise to the people of Iraq. To break that promise would only reinforce the concept that America has a weak stomach. If you want to get what you want you just kill a few Americans and we'll cower to any demands.

Pulling out with the job unfinished would also be leaving the people of Iraq to the terrorists. All those who have travelled from other countries, and all those Iraqis who now fight to continue the murder and raping heyday of the Hussein regime would have free reign over the people.

That might be "acceptable" for you Deference, but to me it is nothing short of cowardly and pro terrorist.


As I've said, anyone who is against this war has every right to speak their conscience. Some of my best friends are against the war in Iraq, and we have continued to be friends.

The goal in war is to destroy the enemy's ability to continue the fight. If a person crosses the line from protesting to actively advocating the enemy's goals, they are no longer "anti" war, but "pro" the other side.

Deference, all you did was spend a lot of time rehashing tired Democrat talking points.

On the contrary, I answered Leuki's question with an argument supported by numerous facts proving my thesis that the cost of Iraq was, is, and never will be worth whatever benefit we Americans may ever gain. I questioned the selectiveness (and by connotation, the sincerity) of the 'humanitarian mission'. I further pushed that question with the depleted uranium facts which begged another question - were / are the Iraqis better served by the damage we've done to their environment versus Saddam Hussein, and I argued Americans were being poorly served by this war because of it's enormous cost.

You sweep all those facts away with one careless statement:

Deference, all you did was spend a lot of time rehashing tired Democrat talking points.

I'm certain Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska would find it very amusing to hear you exclaim he is merely rehashing a Democratic talking point when he articulates his very real concerns regarding the budget priorities being out of order because Iraq keeps hogging more and more American pie.

You said President Bush has stated what needs to be done in Iraq. Let me remind you, with quotes from his June 28 speech, exactly what he said:

To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents. To complete the mission, we will prevent al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban, a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends. And the best way to complete the mission is to help Iraqis build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.



That sounds pretty good, doesn't it? It should, it was written by a presidential speechwriter on hire, but the pretty words have a glossy veneer to them, that when nicked, exposes the cheap material hiding beneath. That cheap material is the open commitment the President was selling when he read those words from the telepromptr.

The President's speechwriter was meticulously ambiguous in defining these goals. There are no absolutes here that can be measured or qualified in the above paragraph. Americans cannot hold the President's feet to the fire in attaining these goals or hold him accountable for failure to achieve these goals as they can be seen as a matter of pure opinion. These goals are overly relative for the purposes I've just mentioned. I thought I'd mention this in case the fact escaped you, or if you already knew this and simply wanted to continue parroting the propaganda.

Let's take a look at what I'm speaking of, shall we?

To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents

Okay, we're hunting down the terrorists and the insurgents. Even if we manage to hunt down every one at some point ever, there will always be new people born every minute or people already living that at some point in their life may decide they don't like the current Iraqi government and try to change it or terrorize it in some way. That statement tells Americans from the get-go that we will forever stay in Iraq unless a more concrete answer is offered, say, like, there are only 10 terrorist threats or attacks within a year.

I'm guessing you believe that to be unacceptable, after, all, you argue, even 1 attack is too many! So you're backing the indefinite stay. Isn't that right, ParaTed2k?

If that isn't correct, and you've had a sudden change of heart, then you're going to have to give me a new definition. Would you say the job is done, our boys (and girls) can go home when there is only 1 terrorist threat or act in a year? Would that be acceptable? If that is acceptable, then we automatically have a qualifier of when our troops can go home. Our troops can go home when the terror threat is down to x%. Good stuff? See this is easy, but the fact is you don't want the troops to come home, do you? You want 'the job to be done'!

Lets go to the ending sentence of this paragraph:

...the best way to complete the mission is to help Iraqis build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.

Iraq can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself right now. How well and to what degree are the key issue here, and that is not defined in the Presidents speech nor have I heard of any plan (like a Marshall Plan which could be confused with an exit strategy)discussing these particulars. So, once again, we don't have any idea when or how the MISSION IS ACCOMPLISHED and we can bring troops home. Particularly when the President himself declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED then kept the troops in Iraq over a year ago.

The goal in war is to destroy the enemy's ability to continue the fight

The President has said this was not a war but a 'Regime Change' it was the so-called "liberal media" that calls this the 'Iraq War'. Regime Change successful! So what now? President Bush says this is a war on terror. Terror and terrorists, just like poverty and drugs will be with man as long as man is around so this is a never ending war.

You seem to like that idea, and now I'll ask you - can you put a pricetag on neverending war? LBJ did. He didn't even bother running for president he so resented his further involvement in Vietnam. As you know, with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords in 1973, President Richard Nixon ended our involvement in Vietnam after losing $140 billion dollars and 54,148 American lives.

When will you concede?

I'm telling the JoeUser.com family now, I don't think there is a single user that will successfully argue against the resolution "Americans will never see a return benefit as great as the sacrifice they will and / or have paid for the war in Iraq."

I fail to believe Draginol, Myrrander, Bakerstreet, ParaTed2k, Little Whip, Dabe, Texas Wahine, or any other JoeUser member will be able to defeat this argument's resolution.

The most obvious counter - argument is:

"Americans will scavenge greater benefit from our involvement in Iraq then the sacrifice we have already or will lay down to accomplish 'The Mission' as defined by George W. Bush, our current President."

I would, however, look for some very unique arguments from some users, and the usual from (insert any User X's name here that has continually served as a current administration mouthpiece, apologist, and valiant defender for this particular administrative policy). Really, any argument you have is eligible, but only a real winner will know that he / she holds the key to defeating this argument.

Sir Peter, are you out there?

Just kidding, I really hate that guy. At least the majority here at JU contribute their time and effort in some serious manner and genuinely care about their / some cause enough to share their opinions on it and not simply haunt about harrassing other users for the sheer nihlistic joy of it.

Begin.

That's a sharp contrast to her diligent, dogged pursuit of personal contact with the president and undying commitment to the peace movement.

Oh, please...her "dogged pursuit of personal contact with the president and undying commitment to the peace movement" are driven solely because of the media that surrounds her 24/7 and the book deal she will almost certainly ink soon, if she hasn't already (and movie rights? Gosh, I hope they don't get an actress I actually LIKE to portray her). Ms. Sheehan most certainly was NOT a peace activist when her son went off to war, now was she? It's only because SHE had to pay a cost that she selfishly aligned herself with the cause.

Deference, The Revolutionary War, The War of 1812, The Civil War, The Mexican American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Desert Storm...

No one knew how long any of these would last, or how much they would cost. In most of the cases there were huge human losses before the U.S. and our allies were able to turn the tide to victory. There were protesters in every case.

Which of these would you have pulled troops out early because of the human or monetary cost?

Which would you have screamed for a date that we need to just stop fighting?

Is your freedom worth anything to you? Or do you think the colonists just gave up simply because it was taking too long... it was too hard... or because the majority of the colonists didn't want the war anyway?

The cry for an "exit strategy" in this war is nothing but political grandstanding. I remember sitting in the desert of Saudi Arabia and Southern Iraq with no idea when we would go home. There were no arbitrary (and childish) deadlines set. There were missions to accomplish... period.

Well, Prs. Bush has stated over and over that we will keep up the fight and a presence in Iraq until the duly elected government of Iraq is ready to stand on its own, or asks us to leave. If you can't except that, well, that is not Prs. Bush's, mine, our troops in Iraq, the government of Iraq, or the people of Iraq's problem. That is yours.

Of course you have a right to your opinion, and that I do respect. I merely disagree with it. If your opinion is merely that you do not agree with the war and want to see it end, I also respect that opinion and your right to it. If your purpose in protesting the war is for our troops to hand the people of Iraq over to the terrorists, then not only do I disagree and disrespect that opinion, I would question the honor and very humanity of anyone who holds such a low opinion of human life.

If you protest Prs. Bush in general, I don't agree, but your protest is as valid as my support... If you disagree with some of the policies and strategies, well, we might just have a few things in common there... If you are a pacifist then I will kill or die for your right to it... But if you are debating whether or not we should have returned to hostilities with Iraq, well the time for that protest is long past. News Flash, for the good or the bad of it...We are there.

I hope that answers your questions.

You said President Bush has stated what needs to be done in Iraq. Let me remind you, with quotes from his June 28 speech, exactly what he said:

I have said that Prs. Bush spelled out from the beginning the 4 reasons to return to hostilities with Iraq

WMD
Hussein Breaking the Ceasefire
Terrorism
Liberate the People of Iraq.

Here are excerpts from the January 28, 2003..State of the Union Address... tell me if any of the above were left out...

Ceasefire

We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm.

Terrorism

A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)

Ceasefire (and UN cooperation sought)

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California.

Ceasefire

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Terrorism

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

Freeing Iraq

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

Ceasefire

The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

~~~~~

You can talk about "vagueness" all you want, but they look pretty clear to me. The emphasis, strategies and tactics have changed along the way, but as you can see, the mission itself hasn't. Strategies and Tactics of course, will always change because the battlefield is not static.

Unless you are willing to go live under the conditions you seem willing to force on the Iraqis if we betray our promises to them, then let's both do what we can to see a successful end to this war, instead of a convenient (for you) end.

Deference:

Iraq can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself right now. How well and to what degree are the key issue here, and that is not defined in the Presidents speech nor have I heard of any plan (like a Marshall Plan which could be confused with an exit strategy)discussing these particulars. So, once again, we don't have any idea when or how the MISSION IS ACCOMPLISHED and we can bring troops home. Particularly when the President himself declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED then kept the troops in Iraq over a year ago.

Now these are just a BOLD FACED LIES!!!

The government of Iraq still feels the need to have us there, so unless you want your own penchant for being a liar to rub off on us as a nation, we need to honor our promise and stay until THEY decide they no longer need us.

You know full well that when Prs. Bush made that speech on the U.S.S. AbrahamLincoln, we had accomplished the mission of taking Hussein out of power a quashing his military. You also know full well that the banner "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" was in reference to the crew of U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln's mission.

So far I'm not getting much in the way of honesty from you Deference. Most of what you write in this thread do seem like sincere questions, but when you sit there and throw the above lies all over the JU, well, I can see why you can't recognize honor.. you have none.

56 by Deference Tuesday, September 27, 2005

I would suggest you blog your long winded response so that others can consider it on its own. not as a comment on a different thread.

I would suggest you blog your long winded response so that others can consider it on its own. not as a comment on a different thread.

I thought about that and almost did it. Unfortunately, the posts are a response and not a blog. To post it as a blog would require that I either link to this page anyway for reference sake (really creating a bad view for the user to see the posts without reference to each other and defeating the purpose of blogging seperately anyway) or asking for Leuki's and ParaTed2k's permission to use their posts in entirety for my blog. Though I'm certain neither of them would really mind if I asked, work has been taking up a considerable amount of time and I wanted the response out ASAP - I did three revisions - worth of editing over the course of another 24 hours in my spare time just to get some sentence structure corrected..

Thanks

Deference, The Revolutionary War, The War of 1812, The Civil War, The Mexican American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Desert Storm...

No one knew how long any of these would last, or how much they would cost. In most of the cases there were huge human losses before the U.S. and our allies were able to turn the tide to victory. There were protesters in every case.

Which of these would you have pulled troops out early because of the human or monetary cost?

Great question. The Korean War is the first I’m against because of it’s false pretenses (Gulf of Tonkin Link) but that is a subject for some other post. I notice you left out Vietnam which leads to my easy question – what do all these wars listed have in common? Each war provided a substantial benefit to the United States, one that may have made the cost of each war justifiable. Because the Iraq war does not and provides little promise to gift us with such return is the reason you’ve seen such a reversal in public support for the war. Very simple. Thanks for adding another point to my thesis. I’ll give you an ‘insightful’ for that last helpful response and a bonus reward; which conflict would I have pulled out of due to monetary reasons and the cost to human life: The Mexican American war, for obvious reasons. Just kidding buddy.

Let me make it clear I am not requesting a simple ‘date’. I’m asking for absolute definitions and qualifiers that we can measure success or accomplishment by – kinda’ like the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act. You would support that, I would guess, if it were not for the fact that you are probably more comfortable with the President & Co. simply doing whatever they want for as long as they want without all that hassle regarding accountability and attainment of goals. This is great for some, but ad infinum schedules tend to work poorly for soldiers in the purgatory of the theatre of conflict or the occupied sovereign country attempting to prove their autonomy and independent viability to the world.

Some people don’t trust politicians to the degree they’ll give them a blank check, however, some people want to know, exactly, what one means by ‘getting the job done’. They want to be able to expect when and want to demand how well that job should be done for their cost to be justified if they agree to trusting someone enough to even start ‘the job’ or even to continue working on ‘the job’. I will briefly remind you what I told Leuki in regards to comparing this war to past wars such as WWII or even *sigh* our Revolutionary War. A closer parallel can be made to a much more recent war America fought and though it's name starts with a V, the war didn't end with one.

‘I have said that Prs. Bush spelled out from the beginning the 4 reasons to return to hostilities with Iraq’

‘Pulling out with the job unfinished would also be leaving the people of Iraq to the terrorists.’

‘Terrorism

A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States.’

‘Freeing Iraq

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.’

Look, according to these quotes you have generously provided, MISSION IS ACCOMPLISHED according to the president's definition of terrorism. We have rid Iraq of ‘terrorism’ and ‘freed’ Iraq. No wonder many people became very confused when they saw the big banner ‘Mission Accomplished’ and observed President Bush waving two victorious hands in the air.

..but let’s shed a bit more light on that issue since you called me a bold-faced liar…

The administration "said that the Navy called for it, and that was a fabrication because they then later acknowledged that it was the White House who created the banner," said Daschle.

At a news conference Tuesday, Bush remarked that the "Mission Accomplished" sign "of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way." [whisky tango foxtrot did he just say?!-def]

The remarks drew some questions about the term "mission accomplished," which at the time was interpreted in some quarters as closing the entire war in Iraq which started in March and brought the fall of Saddam Hussein in April.

Asked if Bush had misled people by appearing in front of the banner, McClellan said "the Navy put it up and it was the Navy at the -- asked us to take care of the production of the banner. And we said that yesterday."

"Our advance staff works closely with people on all events that the president is involved in," he noted.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1030-06.htm

Hmm. Very curious. The White House personally intervened in making certain that banner was posted, doesn’t sound like the troops spontaneously did some arts and crafts on their own to congratulate themselves now does it? Bold faced lies? Try deception and propaganda – and not coming from yours truly, friend.

‘You can talk about "vagueness" all you want, but they look pretty clear to me. The emphasis, strategies and tactics have changed along the way, but as you can see, the mission itself hasn't’

One of the planks of my argument criticized the contemporary state of things in Iraq and the ambiguity, vagueness, or overall blank check George wrote himself in June when he gave the speech I quoted from in my post. My critical remarks were never answered by you, but instead, misapplied to President Bush’s reasons in 2003 for return to hostilities in Iraq - not the plank I was speaking of addressing the overly broad ‘goals’ in his most recent speech. If Saddam is gone and the people are ‘free’ then Mission Accomplished; troops home, but the reasons for staying in Iraq keep coming and now it seems as if the last one has cemented our occupancy in Iraq – something you seem to support.

There are a few more questions you presented I want to get to but I’ve got to go to bed.

Tomorrow.

Let me make it clear I am not requesting a simple ‘date’. I’m asking for absolute definitions and qualifiers that we can measure success or accomplishment by

...and by which the enemy can take as the time they can save their resources until. No person in their right mind tells the enemy how much longer we are willing to fight. Even if Prs. Bush and our military leaders had a date in mind, there is no reason to tell anyone.

kinda’ like the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act. You would support that, I would guess, if it were not for the fact that you are probably more comfortable with the President & Co. simply doing whatever they want for as long as they want without all that hassle regarding accountability and attainment of goals.

Apparently you haven't read many of my statements on the matter. I am against NCLB. It is nothing more than the federal government meddling state and local affairs.

You see, I don't give Prs. Bush (or anyone else) a blank check for my support. I don't support NCLB and as far as I can see, what Prs. Clinton did by ignoring terrorism for 8 years is the same as what Prs. Bush is doing with illegal immigration. So much for me being a blind supporter.

The administration "said that the Navy called for it, and that was a fabrication because they then later acknowledged that it was the White House who created the banner," said Daschle.

I don't trust Daschle as far as I can throw an elephant in the wind. That goes double for anything he would say concerning Prs. Bush. Either way though, that doesn't change the fact that you know Prs. Bush didn't call "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" for the whole campaign, but merely that the Hussein Regime was defeated. The mission changed from defeating Hussein's military to defending Iraq against the terrorist bacteria. You know this, yet you continue with the lie that he announced the war was over. You have to live with whatever that tells you about your honesty or integrity. I think it puts them in question.. but that's just my opinion... for what it's worth.

The remarks drew some questions about the term "mission accomplished," which at the time was interpreted in some quarters as closing the entire war in Iraq which started in March and brought the fall of Saddam Hussein in April.

Last I checked, a mission isn't an entire war. With various units, I accomplished a lot of missions, in war, "brushfire", humanitarian and training, we celebrated "mission accomplished" but didn't consider the job done until we were back at homestation, and our equipment was accounted for and cleaned... just like the crew of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.

You are right, I did leave Vietnam out of the list. Vietnam was an example of the U.S. breaking a promise to the people we set out to help. Our government broke that promise the minute they quit allowing the commanders in country to fight the war. It should have stayed a Special Ops operation as JFK promised, but well LBJ decided there was more to be gained (but not for the troops, the U.S. or even S. Vietnam by escalating the numbers but not the will to win. After 10 years of not allowing the troops to win the war, Nixon sealed the disgrace by abandoning our troops in the field with the pullout. Allowing the North Vietnamese and VietCong to rape, murder and torture at will. Imagine, that disgrace is what you hope for... I guess you learned nothing from the past... what a shame.

Just think, if we had have cut our losses and quit after 3 years, we never would have had to fight beyond the Revolutionary War because we would have surrendered YOUR freedom to King George. But apparently your freedom is all that matters to you... and that you take for granted... and resent for anyone else. Yet another shame.

There seem to be some very evident truths being brought to light in these posts between us.

You seemingly are of the opinion that once a conflict has begun, regardless of false pretenses or cost to Americans, Americans shall always stick to a conflict, regardless.

My position in this argument is that Americans will not and should not stick to a conflict when the cost of it outweighs the benefits.

I find your position unreasonable, you seem to define mine as cowardly and disloyal.

I believe my position to be particularly loyal to the American people as my argument holds American best interests at it's heart in terms of loss of monetary, strategic, and life costs being the bar to continuing this particular conflict.

If this were the Revolutionary War, I would agree that we fight to the last man, but this is not the Revolutionary War. This war is also not World War II wherein a dictator threatened to expand his empire to the farthest reaches of the world.

This war was initially about National Security (Weapons of Mass Destruction), then Humanitarian (Iraqi needs), then Security needs again (terrorist threats and destabilization of established government).

I tell you the American people signed up for this war on the first reason which did not pan out. Please be very honest with yourselves, the American majority would not have supported the war in Iraq based on humanitarian needs basis. I've illustrated the point and reiterated it many times in multiple posts from Leuki to Parated2k, so let's not attempt to backtrack to that point again.

Selling people on the humanitarian need seemed to have alleviated public admonishment for this war for a bit but now that dam too has burst. The American people simply aren't able to bring themselves to spend American credit (since we are in a deficit) and more family members' and friends' lives on a humanitarian mission that does not include American benefit (i.e. going in to further debt to aide elderly or young Americans in everything from prescription drug benefits to education, to even Homeland Security, Fema, and the national highway infrastructure - hell, throw in an alternative energy initiative - instead of making it to the moon in 10 years, we'll find a way to make affordable renewable energy available for all).

Since neither of the first two have panned out, we've been brought back to square one; redefined. Terrorism is no longer a 'dangerous dictator' but those threatening the new government in Iraq.

Americans are having difficulties processing how this terrorism is threatening them, after all, as many JU supporters of this war have exclaimed, we import only two to five percent of our oil from Iraq, how could we gain?

I and others, of course, realize that to be an extremely dull observation (for example, what if current gas prices rose by two to five percent what would the price of a candybar airlifted or trucked across the country cost?)

The point being, the terrorism rationalization only works when there is terrorism occuring that makes people feel uncomfortable - right now the terrorism is happening in act only highly visible to Americans in Iraq, so Americans must feel leaving Iraq is a much more viable, desirable, and less costly option then continually stirring the hornet's nest with our presence and, instead, dealing with domestic issues at home.

Parated2k, you are telling these rational people it is verboten, the administration is telling rational Americans that leaving is verboten and the President's approval ratings are down, I suggest, primarily because of this cause. Island Dog may tell you polls mean less then spit (my interpretation of what he's saying) but the fact is the White House and marketing firms, in general, probably depend upon such polls almost ritualistically as a means to best evaluate their performance.

...and that's bed time for me.

I know I've not been to the brass tacks yet tonight, but I'll have to wait till tomorrow...

enjoy

Your position includes betraying the promises we have made. There is nothing about your position that is anything short of allowing terrorists to run freely in Iraq, raping at will.

You are a pro terrorist, waste of human flesh who would stand by applauding as you watched a woman get raped (as long as she isn't someone you know). You deserve nothing less than the horror you wish on others.

Enjoy your cowardly, self centered, nothing of a life. You and Colon Gangrene should get together... there is nothing worth calling human in him left either. Think anything of me what you wish as I have more respect for a dog's vomit than your pathetic stupidity.

I was considering finishing off my 'debate' with you, but it seems you've already offed yourself rather then see me with nails and hammer coming to nail your argument's proverbial coffin shut.

You have just given everyone here the perfect illustration of an irrational warhawk indifferent to fact regarding this war. You argument has de-evolved to 'if you don't want to fight, you're a pro-terrorist coward'.

Facts and considerations other than conlict are not within your realm of reasoning, only mere annoyances to hinder the bloodletting. You know, you could have just said that, but, instead, you do every one else here a favor and paint the perfect caricature of those fanatically attempting to justify this war.

I've got a question for you, how do you expect Americans to sustain this conflict for another possible ten (10!) years (or even indefinently) if you expire simply by typing about it off and on for three days?

I can go on and easily defend myself against your baseless last remarks, I could go on and on reminding you of how I've already addressed points and how you've still not presented counterpoints.

I could faithfully sketch parallels in how your inability to reason is reflective of the 'ask no questions and follow marching orders' attitude our current administration promotes to the base of it's supporters and how that caters disservice to American troops, economy, and national security interests.

I can, and would, spell everything out to you, but you can't read (so to speak).

However, all nastiness aside, thank you for the attempt, it's been more of an effort then what some (or any) have made, and you did do more then offer single lines of insults, so kudos to you, Parated2k.

Next!

I was considering finishing off my 'debate' with you, but it seems you've already offed yourself rather then see me with nails and hammer coming to nail your argument's proverbial coffin shut. You have just given everyone here the perfect illustration of an irrational warhawk indifferent to fact regarding this war. You argument has de-evolved to 'if you don't want to fight, you're a pro-terrorist coward'. Facts and considerations other than conlict are not within your realm of reasoning, only mere annoyances to hinder the bloodletting. You know, you could have just said that, but, instead, you do every one else here a favor and paint the perfect caricature of those fanatically attempting to justify this war. I've got a question for you, how do you expect Americans to sustain this conflict for another possible ten (10!) years (or even indefinently) if you expire simply by typing about it off and on for three days? I can go on and easily defend myself against your baseless last remarks, I could go on and on reminding you of how I've already addressed points and how you've still not presented counterpoints. I could faithfully sketch parallels in how your inability to reason is reflective of the 'ask no questions and follow marching orders' attitude our current administration promotes to the base of it's supporters and how that caters disservice to American troops, economy, and national security interests. I can, and would, spell everything out to you, but you can't read (so to speak). However, all nastiness aside, thank you for the attempt, it's been more of an effort then what some (or any) have made, and you did do more then offer single lines of insults, so kudos to you, Parated2k. Next!

See they have already written a blog about this very subject. Time and again you were shown to be wrong and you simply ignored what para said and just reitterated your talking points. So when he finally gives up in disgust, you claim a victory where none exsists. So in fact you did NOT win the arguement. Fact is "you" lost!

See they have already written a blog about this very subject.

Which blog on what subject, you need to be more precise for me to answer your question.

Time and again you were shown to be wrong and you simply ignored what para said and just reitterated your talking points.

If you are so dull as to not see where I responded to many of Para's arguments or too stubborn to recognize them it will hardly do anyone any good and simply waste my time going back over all of them simply to baby-feed you.

So when he finally gives up in disgust, you claim a victory where none exsists. So in fact you did NOT win the arguement. Fact is "you" lost!

I never claimed I 'won' the argument. Perhaps you felt I did and attributed that opinion to me?