Comments - Latest Popular Stories, Instablogs Community by Lewwaters

Faroogh

Faroogh — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

The banner of ‘Mission Accomplished’ was a cruel joke indeed. For Bush Junior the mission was actually to kill Saddam. What would he say on the continuous killing of US troops in Iraq? At least 49 U.S. troops died in Iraq in April. April was the deadliest month since September last year when 65 US troops died in a month time. In past six year, at least 4,061 US soldiers have been killed in Ira. Iraqar is now just another name in the list of the Vietnam War (August 1964 to January 1973), the Afghanistan war (October 2001 to present) and the Revolutionary War (July 1776 to April 1783) which have engaged America for longer time.

Hasto

Hasto — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

The banner should be written as ‘Mission Failed Miserably’. Can US President Bush call it a victory in Iraq after the death of more than 4000 US troops in past six years? Congratulations to BUSH of five years of his failed mission.

Fasal

Fasal — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

George Bush was making fool of US citizens by showing the banner of Mission accomplished five years ago. The failure in Iraq at present would be a calamity that would haunt the United states, impair the credibility of a super power, and endanger US citizens for decades.

Anil

Anil — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

The self-styled custodian of liberty in the world! Who else but the big brother the United States of America. Its oil (read energy) diplomacy in the hydro-carbon rich Mid-East countries have cost dearly to the Mid-East countries and the United States equally. Even then the U.S. in unwilling to realise that the so-called ’Mission Accomplished’ will prove to a nail in the coffins of the US in the history.

Reza

Reza — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Who was the worst victim after Iraqi people in Iraq war - the US troops. The US troops have been exhausted. They have become culturally weak because they don’t even know about Iraqi political, social and religious realities. they have no enough translators and specialists. And who is responsible for it - US President George Bush.

Nick

Nick — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Was there any need to initiate the ‘mission’ in 21st century? Saddam’s atrocities were mainly in the 80’s and Bush started his mission some 20 years late. He decided to save the Iraqi people who were killed by Saddam using American weapons. It will be better for America to send the troops in Darfur to save people. Bush can’t do it because he is not interested in saving people or establishing democracy. He is more interested in satisfying his ego. Bush is not the winner in his mission, the real winners are those people who made hundreds of millions in the name of rebuilding Iraq and fighting the war against terrorism.

Joel

Joel — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

According to me, Winning has no meaning. Bush succeeded in accomplishing his mission or his objectives in Iraq. Iraqis are now governing their own country and defending itself because there are no Saddam and his team. Bush has done a great job.

Carmen

Carmen — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

George Bush is not responsible for what he has done to US army and treasury. Don’t blame Bush for the presence of US army in Iraq. We Americans are responsible for the killing of 4000 US troops in Iraq. The reason is simple we elected Bush to a second term even after his failure to find WMD in Iraq. We should blame ourselves because he received a clear mandate to continue the job he was doing in his first term.

Nick

Nick — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

“Things could always have been done better, in 20/20 hindsight. But that is the unpredictable nature of war.” Yes perhaps very true, there always remains the scope for the improvement and war is unpredictable, No doubt. However, these are nothing more than the petty excuses of republican Govt. given in defense of the war. Ifs and buts have no existence and the ground reality in Iraq or Afghanistan is far from the epitaph “mission accomplished”. “War on terror” in either case – be it Iraq or Afghanistan – is a failure and President Bush did nothing different than biting dust in both missions, as far as his strategic craftsmanship is concerned. “Mission Accomplished” is a fable propagated by Bush and his cronies to dodge the world in general an US people in particular. But I don’t think they can continue long with this anecdote.

Jordan

Jordan — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Mission Accomplished??? But when, how?? Rather it puts a lingering question over the continued violence in Iraq… and thereby, Bush calling it Mission accomplished…huh… ridiculous!!! Ok ok… we agree for a moment... Fine! but how about failed search for weapons of mass destruction, Bin Laden and continuing violence in Iraq? Every time Bush came with a new phrase – we are winning in Iraq, Mission Accomplished, we may win in Iraq…and we know we are losing in iraq, morally, spiritually, technically, strategically, financially… I wish Bush to accept now “we’re loosing in Iraq” before he finally leaves white house!!!

Lewis Waters

Lewis Waters — Sat, 03 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I thank all of you for your comments. Needless to say, I disagree with most of them, but unlike other places I frequent, none of you were vitriolic.

Jordan, hate to tell you but according to most of the Troops on the ground it isn’t lost. Sorry, but Iraqi’s deserve a shot at a free society as do others.

Nick, neither are a failure yet. A failure would be if we once again pulled the plug on a friend and left them to the slaughter that was rained on the Vietnamese in the mid 1970s.

I simply do not understand why so many are so opposed at the Iraqi people gaining freedom to chart their own course.

Carmen, WMD’s were but one reason for the war. In the length of time it was broadcast we were coming, where did they go? So many of the worlds intelligence agencies said they were there, did Saddam fool the entire world?

Joel, thanks. With the promotion of General Petraeus and the so called ”surge,” it has improved. They still have a way to go, but freedom doesn’t come easy for anyone.

Fasal, if we abandon like we did the Vietnamese, yes it will become a calamity that will haunt all for generations to come. If we continue to train and strengthen the Iraqis, they will stand for their country and make their own way, as many are currently doing.

Faroogh, what is the appropriate length of time before someone elses freedom no longer matters?

There have been some 1.3 million who have served in the WoT. If that number is remotely accurate, that amounts to about one third of one percent of all who served. While I grieve for every one of my brothers and sisters who sacrificed their lives, I also hold them in high esteem for volunteering to fight for the freedom of people they didn’t even know. As our Bibles say, ”Greater love has no man that he would give his life for his friend.”

Hasto, as I told others, the only failure would be to once again abandon a struggling ally and leave them fall to the wanton slaughter that would befall them from radical extremists. That was done before and millions died. A repeat would be disatrous for the world.

Anil, if we are after oil, why is it costing so much today and why is China buying so much? China was opposed to deposing Saddam, if I recall right.

Reza, yes, our Military is stretched. But don’t you find it a bit hypocritical that the ones in America saying there are insufficient volunteers are the same ones doing what they can to stop people from volunteering? Then again, have you any idea how so many Iranian weapons are turning up in Iraq and being used against mostly Iraqis? Isn’t a delegation from Baghdad currently complaining to President Ahmadinejad about Iranian weapons finding their way into Iraq?

And finally, Nick. Sorry to disappoint, but the weapons used by Saddam came from European countries, not America. As for the rebuilding of Iraq, how many countries who refused to help depose Saddam or help institute a lasting peace there line up to rebuild, for a fee? Seems I recall quite a few.

Again, I thank you all. As I stated early on in the post, the banner has been twisted to mean what it didn’t. Most of you confirmed that since not one had anything to say about the actual speech or Bush’s call that it wasn’t over and was going to be a long haul.

Does anybody actually believe Al Qaeda and similar extremist groups will be content just to see the U.S. leave?

Anil

Anil — Sat, 03 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Thanks Lewis for concluding the debate in an enlightened manner. It is a catch 22 situation for the US which, you are correct, should not abandon Iraq in the lurch as it did with Vietnam, leading to chaos. The US should abandon its negative bias against the Shia Muslims to keep its Sunni friends in Saudi Arabia happy while drafting policy for the war-torn Iraq.

Lewis Waters

Lewis Waters — Sat, 03 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Anil, I won’t pretend to understand a lot about Islam, I have but a basic cursory knowledge of the religion.

Most Americans, and I imagine many others, really don’t understand the difference between Sunni and Shia. I tend to place Iraqis as Iraqis, regardless of belief, much like our varied religions in the U.S., but we are all still Americans

Correct me I am wrong, though, but I thought the Saudis were majority Shia, not Sunni. In fact, wasn’t Ayatollah Khomeni of Iran Sunni?

If I’m not mistaken, Al Maliki is Shia, is he not?

Regardless, if the two factions would come together against the extremists, I feel Iraq would become a formidable free society. Just my opinion, though.

Rudolf

Rudolf — Sat, 03 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Lewis,

Please accept that Iraq was a mission impossible from the very beginning. Say everything went well the way Rumsfield had predicted, what would have happened is that ten years after, an incarnate of Saddam will emerge and overthrow the government of Iraq. And once again, we shall return to square one.

Lewis Waters

Lewis Waters — Sun, 04 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Rudolf, I respectfully disagree. Wars never go smooth, even when they enjoy mass support.

Labeling it as ”mission impossible” and predicting a rapid return of a Saddam type dictator sells the Iraqis short.

Would you apply the description to Afghanistan too?

How would the world look if our parents had the same ”mission impossible” attitude in 1942? There were some notable people even then opposing the fight against the Nazi’s in Germany, the Japanese and Italians.

Think too how the Blacks in America would be today had the Senators from both parties not stood up to the Southern Democrats in the 1960s to pass Civil Rights because someone considered their struggle for Equal Rights ”mission impossible.” Even that battle isn’t totally won.

Even after WW2, some of the same words were hear today were being expressed. From the January 7, 1946 edition of Life magazine is an article, ”We Are Losing The Peace.”

Even the New York Times was very critical throughout 1945, much like today.

Can we honestly say the Liberation of Europe is a failure today?

Sir Winston Churchill once said, ”War is mainly a catalogue of blunders. In war, as in life, it is often necessary, when some cherished scheme has failed, to take up the best alternative open, and if so, it is folly not to work for it with all your might.”

A difficult struggle? Yes. Impossible? No. One thing I have learned over the years is that soon after we prove something to be impossible, watch someone go do it.

Personally, I feel the Iraqi and Afghani peoples deserve every chance at freedom that the rest of us enjoy.

Anil

Anil — Sun, 04 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Thanks Lewis, for the enlightened debate. It is to the posterity to decide who was wrong but the question was that of the options available to the United States when it launched a war against Saddam.

Lewis Waters

Lewis Waters — Sun, 04 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Anil, the options available have been disputed since long before the invasion. Given the horrific events of September 11, 2001, which I have always maintained were not only against America, but a strike against Western Culture and Capitalism, Saddam Hussein was a more important matter than before.

Recent reports have been misreported in the U.S. Media about ties between Saddam and terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. While no one has claimed Saddam was instrumental in the 9/11 attacks themselves, his ties to terrorism and the support he had given such groups over the years made it even more urgent he account for the WMD’s that nearly the entire worlds intelligence agencies said were there.

For months diplomatic measures through the United Nations were tried, even as the Taliban was being confronted in Afghanistan.

The U.N. unanimously passed U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 in November 2002. Further efforts to get Saddam to comply failed and 5 months later, efforts to force Saddam into compliance were instituted by invading the country.

Realizing WMDs were but one reason for the invasion, the belief that they were present in significant quantity and posed a real danger to the world, should they be given to terrorists, limited the options after Saddam refused to comply with 17 UN Resolutions over 12 years.

I am of the mind that they were there and were moved prior to the invasion, but that is only an opinion and unprovable at this time, in spite of claims made.

Keep in mind too that during the 1990’s, Saddam was considered a threat that must be dealt with.

Our ABC News ran a 1999 documentary outlining the connection between Saddam and Bin Laden.

In a 1998 Speech by President Clinton, the claim was made, ”What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.”

In a November 1997 Speech, former Presidential candidate, John Kerry said to the US Senate, ”We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent — and that the United States should support and participate in those steps.”

”In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior.”

”But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out.”

I bring these three into the discussion because all of them, and many more, were soldily opposed to taking the very actions they advocated, once their political party was no longer leading.

Yes, there were other options prior to the invasion in March 2003, but in my opinion, they were exhausted without compliance by Saddam and the threat was too grave to wait another 12 years hoping he would comply.

In my opinion, the entire free world should be supporting the Iraqi’s efforts at setting their country in motion to their own vision of Democracy, as they choose.

We can teach, but they must decide and choose. In the meantime, they need help and support from outside to stave off those who plunge the country and people back into oppression.

Jayaprashanth

Jayaprashanth — Sun, 04 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

@ lewis

Sir, all i wanna know is why the hell does The United States of America want to interfere in every other nation’s business? First the non existent WMD’s, now it is the ”freedom struggle of the Iraqis”. The cost of it all? Millions of innocent lives!!! Do we really need all this?

Lewis Waters

Lewis Waters — Sun, 04 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Jayaprashanth, thank you for your question. I cannot speak for the entire U.S. or the government, so will just give you my personal opinion.

You ask, ”why the hell does The United States of America want to interfere in every other nation’s business?”

Sir, we are not the ones performing suicide attacks against civilians in various countries. However, we are amongst the freest countries on the planet. Our freedom was gained with the help of other nations in the 1700’s.

To a degree, all nations ”interfere in every other nations business” with trade agreements, tarriffs and other negotiated treaties and such.

We are acussed of being an ”Imperialistic Nation,” yet none can quite point to the conquered lands we have built an empire on. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell once said, ”all we ask for is a small plot of land to bury our dead.”

You ask is it worth it due to ”millions of innocent lives lost.” I ask in return, is it worth it to abandon a struggling ally and watch as many millions more are slaughtered and oppressed?

What is currently going on isn’t new, history is replete with struggles for freedom.

Freedom and Democracy cannot be imposed upon others. It can only be offered to those who desire to pay the price for having it.

Gagandeep

Gagandeep — Sun, 04 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Lewis, point granted about not reading the ’Mission Accomplished’ bit out of context. And yet can you say contradict that Bush sounded all too confident about the whole war from the onset? Is he not guilty of sounding smug and over-confident throughout the effort in Iraq?

Democrats would not abandon Iraq now that their nation has got the ”ally” in a mire, but who can blame them for agreeing with the growing sentiment over what has happened since the US intervention.

By the way all this exporting of freedom and democracy sounds quite good in theory but then the practicality of ”oil” must be brought into the picture too.

Farheen Jamal

Farheen Jamal — Sun, 04 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

applaudable is the debate that you have put up sir downsizing everyone of them who raised a question against your beliefs.

what i enjoyed in the debate is the research which none of your worthy opponents seem to take notice of. wake up people. the issue is not so grave that you dont have answers..!!

Jayaprashanth

Jayaprashanth — Sun, 04 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Your last line ”Freedom and Democracy cannot be imposed upon others. It can only be offered to those who desire to pay the price for having it” is something even i agree with. But i still reiterate my belief that no nation should continually meddle with other nations’ problems to further exploit it for it’s own business interests or to give it’s arms factories some extra production. Wars don’t win freedom, peace certainly does!!! And, the biggest example happens to be my very own Country where peace triumphed over imperial forces, sixty years ago.

Lewis Waters

Lewis Waters — Sun, 04 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Gagandeep, yes President Bush made confident speeches and appearances. Would you want a leader who has exhausted his options and sought to prevent more deadly attacks to sound pessimistic? Yet, if you view many of the televised speeches made as the final decision was announced, please note the look of concern in his eyes and face.

It wasn’t an easy decision and he was naïve to believe the opposition party wouldn’t take advantage of it politically, as they did after their party leadership, who embroiled us deeply in the Viet Nam Struggle against Communist aggression, was no longer in the White House and they campaigned against the very armed struggle they started.

That is why I gave a few quotes from Democrat Party leaders whose calls when they were in the seat of power are far different today once others initiate the very actions they first called for. To me, that is political opportunism at its worst.

Don’t underestimate the Democrats, Gagandeep. It was they who betrayed the South Vietnamese people in 1975 by refusing to live up to the agreement forced upon the South Vietnamese government by the Paris Peace Accords. Vietnamese I associate with, many who escaped as the “Boat People” of the early 1980’s have recounted experiences no living human being should endure after we sat idly by and allowed them to be placed under Communist Oppression.

As for oil, yes, the entire world is dependent upon oil. The Middle East has an abundance of it and we are prevented from tapping our own supplies of it by many of those same Democrats who constantly call for independence from Foreign Oil.

With what oil is costing today, it appears to me that all the calls of “War for Oil” resounding from the anti-war leftist in America are moot and extremely uninformed.

Farheen Jamal, thank you. You are correct that there are answers, if people seek them. Sadly, many don’t wish to accept obvious answers or support what is needed to remain free. I believe that evil definitely exists throughout the world and surrendering to it is very detrimental to all for many generations.

Jayaprashanth, I especially appreciate your comment. I enjoy historical research and reading and you encouraged me to research a part of history I knew little about, India’s Independence.

I have met and associated with several of your countrymen here in the U.S. and find them to be extremely good people, for the most part. Ghandi’s leadership and calls for non-violent demonstrations have inspired many of my own countrymen, even if I felt they were for misguided reasons. Unfortunately, non-violent demonstrations too often slip into violence.

I ran across a review of a book that admittedly, I have not read, that discusses another aspect of India’s Struggle for freedom from British Colonial Rule, The Forgotten Army: India’s Armed Struggle for Independence. If, what the book author writes is true, there was more to India’s victorious defeat of Britain than has been taught.

That being said, you are correct in that “Wars don’t win freedom.” They only defeat oppression and tyranny and give people the chance to build their peace. Once peace has been attained, it is all too often lost or threatened, as your own country has experienced with Pakistan since gaining Independence from Britain.

It also cannot be ignored that during Ghandi’s leadership and non-violent demonstrations, riots often broke out between the Hindu’s and Muslim’s following him. Additionally, Ghandi’s assassination shows that violence can be found anywhere and when least expected, it rears its ugly head.

That being said, I totally disagree with the Colonial Rule imposed upon nations by Europe in times past. Fortunately, that seems to be relegated to history today.