Talk:War on Terror

Question: (A) What are robust surveying methods? (B) Isn't Nature the same magazine that says Wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopedia Britanica? RobS 23:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It will end when all terror has been eradicated from the Earth? Are you kidding me? --John 00:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Mission Accomplished

RobS, hy erase the Mission Accomplished entry. Is that not an accurate statement?

Not about the War on Terror. That's like saying the Korean War stalemate in 1953 ended the Cold War. RobS 13:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

It is accurate to state the Bush declared "Mission Accomplish," and the casualty totals are also accurate. "Mission Accomplished" is not my phrase. It is a identifiable point in the war on which to judge our progress. Don't say I am inaccurate, if anyone is inaccurate it is the White House for using the phrase.

No it's not. Someone in the Defense Dept spent money to buy a banner. Bush didn't say it. Neither was the reference to winning the War on Terrorism. Next I suppose, we'll hear the argument how Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror, although you are insisting removing Sadam means an end to the War on Terror.

And another note: removing Sadam did not accomplish the mission either. The objective was regime change, i.e. replacing one regime with another. And it remains to be seen if the existing regime will survive. So in no way was (a) the mission accomplished of regime change; (b) the mission accomplished to defeat terrorism; (c) did George Walker Bush ever make the statement.

You're spittin in the wind with this one. RobS 15:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Even if Bush didn't use the term "Mission Accomplished," the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces standing in from of a banner reading "Mission Accomplished" during a speech broadcast live on national television has the same import. I may not remember high school civics too well, but isn't the defense department under the executive branch?

I never implied the removal of Sadam to be the end of the War of Terror. I am merely conveying the suggestion posited by the administration that the removal of Sadam was decisive for our campaign in Iraq.

The Sadam-bin Laden connection stuff must be removed. It is by no means a "close" connection. Take a look at the source cited. All it says is that Sadam offered hum asylum in 1999. If this is enough evidence upon which to base a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, then we are in a sad state.

Tommy Franks even responded to that criticism and said it was perhaps a poor choice of words. But one must keep in mind, these young people were just staring death in the face, and they removed Saddam with few casualties.

This does open the door to a wider discussion--how a military built to fight against big, slow-moving, visible targets such as armies, military bases, or government ministries during the Cold War, is not designed for use against small terrorist cells.

I'll look at the source. But it seems you've already admitted a connection and then made a leap to a conclusion. Are you argueing the planet would somehow be better off with Saddam still in power? And if so, what do liberals stand for today, since they have obviously rejected human rights and democracy? RobS 15:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)