The Ever Changing Definition of ‘Mission’ In Iraq

[adios]

As I've mentioned before George Bush has changed the mission in Iraq at least a few times and this has gotten him and the Republicans into mucho hot water.

The Ever Changing Definition of ‘Mission’ In Iraq

Cliff Notes on the various mission changes:


---THE PRE-WAR MISSION WAS TO RID IRAQ OF WMD


---AFTER THE WAR BEGAN, THE MISSION EXPANDED

---THEN THE MISSION WAS COMPLETE

---BUT THEN IT CONTINUED AGAIN AS THE MISSION WAS TO DEVELOP A FREE IRAQ AND TO TRAIN THE IRAQI TROOPS

---THEN IT SHIFTED TO ADVANCING DEMOCRACY AND PROTECTING AMERICA FROM TERRORISTS

---THEN THE MISSION WAS PROVIDING SECURITY FOR THE IRAQI POPULATION



I'll add what I think will be the next mission:

THE SURGE IS WORKING WE NEED TO EXPAND THE SURGE

THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT NEEDS A PERMANENT FORCE IN IRAQ TO STABILIZE THE GOVERNMENT

....

The mission appears to me to be to be whatever GWB want's it to be. Not sure what the "final mission" is though, if there is one.

[Nielsio]

LDO



Do you actually think there is a legitimate reason for invading another country?

Any reason they give is a complete lie, forge, BS, dupe, trickery.

And ofcourse their plan works perfectly. The public keeps asking the wrong questions and meanwhile nothing changes.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
LDO



Do you actually think there is a legitimate reason for invading another country?

Any reason they give is a complete lie, forge, BS, dupe, trickery.

And ofcourse their plan works perfectly. The public keeps asking the wrong questions and meanwhile nothing changes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Self-defense. I know pacifists like you won't like this idea. I know you also won't understand that I am not talking about Iraq. But theoretically self-defense is a legitamate reason to invade another country.

[2/325Falcon]

[ QUOTE ]
THE SURGE IS WORKING

[/ QUOTE ]

Guaranteed to hear this from the Bush admin.

[ QUOTE ]
WE NEED TO EXPAND THE SURGE

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet the Bush admin. will say the exact opposite. Bush and co. will be under so much pressure to help the GOP in the '08 elections that I think a troop reduction from the surge numbers is likely.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
THE SURGE IS WORKING

[/ QUOTE ]

Guaranteed to hear this from the Bush admin.

[ QUOTE ]
WE NEED TO EXPAND THE SURGE

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet the Bush admin. will say the exact opposite. Bush and co. will be under so much pressure to help the GOP in the '08 elections that I think a troop reduction from the surge numbers is likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the administration is already floating the prospect of a troop surge through 2008.

U.S. troop ‘surge’ looking long-term

Why do so many Democrats want to impeach this guy?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. Self-defense. I know pacifists like you won't like this idea. I know you also won't understand that I am not talking about Iraq. But theoretically self-defense is a legitamate reason to invade another country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Example please.

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. Self-defense. I know pacifists like you won't like this idea. I know you also won't understand that I am not talking about Iraq. But theoretically self-defense is a legitamate reason to invade another country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Example please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, to "invade" as opposed to "repel" would most likely require a preemptive strike in anticipation of an attack that hasn't happened yet. Unless, of course, you invade as part of a "never again" mentality in response to an enemy attack such as the US response to Japan after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and an Alaskan island.

A good modern example might be the 6-day war.

"In the months before June 1967, Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from the Sinai Peninsula, increased its military activity near the border, blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, and called for unified Arab action against Israel. In June 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt's airforce fearing an imminent invasion by Egypt. Jordan then attacked western Jerusalem and Netanya. At the war's end, Israel had gained control of eastern Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day." -wikipedia

Now, obviously the result of this wasn't "lasting peace" for Israel. But, the result was a whole lot better for Israel than sitting around waiting for the Arabs to attack when they finally got good and ready to do so.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, obviously the result of this wasn't "lasting peace" for Israel. But, the result was a whole lot better for Israel than sitting around waiting for the Arabs to attack when they finally got good and ready to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that an aggressive attack can benefit the aggressor, at least in the short term. I am asking for an example of where such an attack is justified. Saying "it worked" as justification is like saying if I beat up an old lady for $25 and don't get caught it was justified.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, obviously the result of this wasn't "lasting peace" for Israel. But, the result was a whole lot better for Israel than sitting around waiting for the Arabs to attack when they finally got good and ready to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that an aggressive attack can benefit the aggressor, at least in the short term. I am asking for an example of where such an attack is justified. Saying "it worked" as justification is like saying if I beat up an old lady for $25 and don't get caught it was justified.

[/ QUOTE ]

If every nation in europe could go back in time an invade Germany before WW2 started and in a surprise invasion take over germany in 2 days with relativly little loss of life it would not be justified???????????????

[Monolith]

The whole frickin' problem with Pubes (re: Bush)is that he never gets into "hot water"; he just keeps saying that he refuses to change; my God, what a goddam idiot...