When?

[Universe Prince]

>>The war on terror, yes, they said that would last a long time. The Iraq war, on the other hand, was going to be quick, a few weeks, or at most a few months.<<

I don?t recall the adminstration making such claims, particularly President Bush.

Rumsfeld did. Cheney did. Both at different times said the war would likely last weeks rather than months. Rumsfeld said at one point he doubted it would last six months.

I?m sorry, but you do seem to be confused. The war in Iraq is most definitely part of the war on terror, and has always been.

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's agree that it is part of the war on terror. The two are still not the same thing.

I think perhaps you have it exactly backwards. We should ALWAYS refer to it as the war on terror, not come up with something different to placate the left, or those who despite what they?ve been told from the beginning refuse to call it what it is.

I'm not trying to placate anybody. I'm trying to advocate for clarity. The Iraq war is won and done. Been so for sometime. We went to war against Iraq, and defeated Iraq, squarely, quickly and completely. Bush said mission accomplished, and in that regard he was correct. What is happening now in Iraq is not the Iraq war. It is military conflict against insurgents and/or terrorists, but it is not the Iraq war. The Iraq war and what is happening now in Iraq are, for the sake of argument, part of the war on terror. Part, not the whole. My car's transmission is part of my car, but I am not going to call the transmission my car or call my car a transmission. That would be unnecessarily confusing when I tried to communicate with other people about my vehicle and/or my car's transmission. The transmission is the transmission and my car is my car. The Iraq war is the Iraq war and the war on terror is the war on terror. The Iraq war is over. The war on terror is not over. The current conflict in Iraq is the current conflict in Iraq. If all the insurgents et al went to, let's say, Turkmenistan tomorrow never to return, the current conflict in Iraq would be finished, but the war on terror, presumably, would not be. So there is no reason to not to be clear about what is the war on terror and what is merely a part of the war on terror.

[hnumpah]

C - This "mission accomplished" war was not supposed to last THIS LONG!

S - And who the heck told you that??  Certainly not Bush, and certainly not Rumsfeld.


"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." - Rummy, in Feb. 2003

[Rich]

>>Bush said mission accomplished, ?<<

If you?re looking for clarity, the above statement is far from clear. It wasn?t Bush who hung that sign, and you know it.

>>So there is no reason to not to be clear about what is the war on terror and what is merely a part of the war on terror.<<

You went the long way around to get here, but aren?t battles part of the war? Are battles fought ina war separate from the whole?

I think not.

The Battle of Bunker Hill WAS the Revolutionary war. Iwo Jima WAS WWII. Gettysburgh WAS the Civil War.

The battles fought are the war. Iraq is the War on Terror.

[Cynthia]

"When Saddam was in power, Al Qaeda Iraq did not exist and was no threat to anyone."


Right on!

This war is just beginning, unfortunately.

I used to believe that this war was going to be the best thing since blue grapevines! I used to believe in my heart that soldiers would not have died in vain, I was sure that Democracy would bloom in the desert like a rose!

But, ironically, this TIMELINE that Sirs speaks about will last for decades! That's Sad.

It's a clear and present shame!

[Rich]

Decades ... decades ...

People don't really change. I'm sure there were people pissing and moaning about how long the Revolution was taking, and the Civil War. there's always going to be short sighted people who don't see the forest for the trees. Thankfully we had leadership who believed that America was worth fighting for and fighting to protect in those days. We haven't had much of that kind of leadership since perhaps Kennedy stared down the Soviet bear and President Reagan administered the coup de gr?ce to the same bear. President Bush will be seen as that sort of leader. Despite anything else he has done, he'll be known for standing up against an enemy of all civilization while others whined about timelines, body counts, and wire taps.

[Amianthus]

"When Saddam was in power, Al Qaeda Iraq did not exist and was no threat to anyone."

When Saddam was in power, he supported Islamic Jihad (which was led by Al-Zawahiri), which also received support from al Qaeda. It has since merged with al Qaeda.

[Cynthia]

"America was worth fighting for and fighting to protect in those days. "


Rhetoric!
Clear and present crap.

The reason for any war should not be called for based solely on the idea  "worth fighting for". A 'war' that is worth fighting for comes about in that context, when a person is directly assulted..hand to hand.

LIfe is worth fighting for, sure
But, not in this conflict.
I have a feeling you will always support war, Rich.

Is there a war you have not supported in the history of America?

[Cynthia]

"When Saddam was in power, Al Qaeda Iraq did not exist and was no threat to anyone."

When Saddam was in power, he supported Islamic Jihad (which was led by Al-Zawahiri), which also received support from al Qaeda. It has since merged with al Qaeda.

When Saddam was in power, he supported killing many people..and he did.
He's dead. I'm glad.
Others are dead. I'm not glad.
Did they have to die?
I say, no.

When Bush was in power, he told us that Saddam was hiding W's of MD and that was the reason for the 'WAR'.
He's almost gone. Thank God.
So are so too many innocent human beings. I pray for their souls. I also pray for Bush's soul. He will need the prayers.
Did they have to die?
I say, no.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"When Bush was in power, he told us that Saddam was hiding W's of MD and that was the reason for the 'WAR'"

President Bush and a few others.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE[/youtube]

[Cynthia]

"When Bush was in power, he told us that Saddam was hiding W's of MD and that was the reason for the 'WAR'"

President Bush and a few others.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE[/youtube]



But, did those "few others" call for this war?
Did they hire the idiots who set the world on fire, with this war, Christian.

Bush is the president of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The Bush buck stops at his desk.

[BT]

Country    Year of Death    Number Killed
USA[4]
   1956-1964    401
   1965    1,863
   1966    6,143
   1967    11,153
   1968    16,592
   1969    11,616
   1970    6,081
   1971    2,357
   1972    641
   1973    168
   1974-1998    1178

War to date Iraq  4000

[Cynthia]

Country    Year of Death    Number Killed
USA[4]
   1956-1964    401
   1965    1,863
   1966    6,143
   1967    11,153
   1968    16,592
   1969    11,616
   1970    6,081
   1971    2,357
   1972    641
   1973    168
   1974-1998    1178

War to date Iraq  4000

BT, that's a shame.

Pitiful.

4000 too many.

[BT]

Why ?

[Universe Prince]

>>Bush said mission accomplished, ?<<

If you?re looking for clarity, the above statement is far from clear. It wasn?t Bush who hung that sign, and you know it.

Pooh yi. No, he didn't hang the sign. He did say "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." So if you prefer, Bush said "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed", and in that regard he was correct. Either way my point is the same.

You went the long way around to get here, but aren?t battles part of the war? Are battles fought ina war separate from the whole?

Battles part of the war, yes, the key word there (for this discussion) being part. Are battles fought in a war separate from the whole. That depends on what you mean by "separate". They are a part, not the whole.

The Battle of Bunker Hill WAS the Revolutionary war. Iwo Jima WAS WWII. Gettysburgh WAS the Civil War.

Um, no. The battle of Bunker Hill was part of the Revolutionary War. Iwo Jima was part of World War II. We don't say that the Battle of the Bulge took place during the Battle of Iwo Jima, do we? Of course not. Do we say the Battle of Yorktown took place during the Battle of Bunker Hill? Of course not. Do we say the Battle of Antietam took place during the Battle of Gettysburg? Of course not.  I get that you're trying to justify calling the Iraq war the same as the war on terror, but I don't know why. It doesn't make a lot of sense to do so, isn't necessary, and doesn't help in any way.

[Christians4LessGvt]

But, did those "few others" call for this war?
Did they hire the idiots who set the world on fire, with this war, Christian.
Bush is the president of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.


Yes and you are changing the subject.

You stated "When Bush was in power, he told us that Saddam was hiding W's of MD and that was the reason for the 'WAR'"

And it is a fact that besides President Bush many, many Democrats also thought Saddam had WMD's.

(Personally I think he did have WMD's, but thats a different subject)

The Bush buck stops at his desk.

Yes and when the last election was held the election was basically about Iraq and President Bush
got the most votes of any US President in history. Yes the buck stops at his desk and hopefully
he will attack Iran before his term runs out.