Talk:War on Terror

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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)

My problem is that saying there is a connection, and more specifically a "close" connection, based on that source implies something greater. Namely, to say so implies that Sadam Hussien is somehow connected to 9/11, and falsehood that even the White House has expressly stated to be untrue.

Would the world be a better place if Sadam Hussen were alive today? I can't answer that question, but I can assure you that there would be a lot fewer dead Americans and Iraqis right now. All we have done is created a power vacuum and provided the setting for a civil war and a terrorist training ground. Oh yeah, and anti-American sentiment worldwide.

To say that I, I assume you're accusing me of being a liberal, do not stand for human rights and democracy is ludicrous. But now that you bring it up. First of all, is democracy truly democracy when it is forced? That seems to go completely against the foundation of the ideal. While we may have removed a terrible despot, is the human rights situation in Iraq any better now that it was ten years ago?

Welcome to the real world. I haven't reviewed the source yet, but will get to it.
One of the most interesting things to observe is many of the same people who criticized GHW Bush for not removing Saddam in 1991, now today argue he should have been left in place. Can't have it both ways. There must be internal logic and consitancy to a persons views, if one is to be taken seriously. These people can be dismissed as mindless partisans.
Now we understand why GWH Bush elected not to remove Saddam in '91. America was not ready to make the commitment to follow through in place of the vacuum you have so correctly identified and described. After 9/11, when Terrorism came home to America, it was thought now, finally, Americans have come to realize they are in this War on Terror, too. All our European and Middle Eastern allies have suffered it for decades. And pretending (1) it doesn't exist, (2) we can ignore it and it'll go away, is not an option.
But liberals are deeply in crisis, because their opposition to human rights and democracy in 2003 is a matter of record. As is their efforts to sell Iraqi's back into political repression and living under a terror regime. And for what? What have they gained?
This whole anti-War movement is little more than middle aged hippies nostalgia for the 1960s. And they haven't clue now, as they didn't then, what's happening in the real world. RobS 18:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I noticed my editing was deleted relating to the Iraq war. The reason cited was that the connection between ratings of approval for bush's handling of the war in Iraq and the war in Iraq were vague. First i do not see what's unclear about this relation and secondly, all of my edits were removed (including information about the reasons stated for going to war.) all facts i added to the entry were cited to professional and reliable sources and i dont understand why they have been removed. Could someone please explain this to me?

(a) edit summary summed it up accurately (b) WMD was not the first & foremost reason for the Iraqi War; regime change was. The effort to cast it otherwise needs no further explaination. (c) then the entry "Iraq War" further degenerates into Washington DC based politcs and partisan sniping, and says absolutely nothing about the Iraqi War.
This, coupled with the original false premise, is b.s. RobS 18:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Alright well despite your efforts to rewrite the past, finding weapons of mass destruction was the first and foremost reason for the Iraq war according to the Bush Administration 4 years ago. If you dont believe me here is a link to an article written in 2003 discussing Colin Powell's arguement for the legitimacy of the war As we both know, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Bush Administration and all their supporters were wrong. Bush is not the pope; he is not infallable he (and his supporters) just have their heads to far up their asses that they cant admit to their mistakes.

you know what? I think that the truth (similar to wikipedia) has a liberal bias. I mean come on... facts? give me a break you pinko fags. get a job and/or go back to russia

Finding weapons of mass destruction was not the first and foremost reason for the Iraq war, despite efforts to rewrite the past. Regime change was the objective, as regime change was not the objective in 1991. RobS 13:55, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The British People where certainly told that the war was about WMDs, don't know how it was sold to the American public, but thats how it was sold to us, I actually do not have a problem with removing Saddam Hussein, he was a monster that was past his usefulness, he had been useful in the Cold War so we created him, then we destroyed him. I do however have a problem with the way we went about it, we should have gotten the mandate and Blair should never have lied to the parliament and people of the UK. We violated the Nuremburg Principles by starting this war without a proper mandate, we gave what moral high ground we had and had sent the message (intentionally or not) that invading a country for having a goverment you do not like is acceptable behaviour, it is up to you to decide if those consequances where worth it. 11:23, 17 August 2010 (EDT)Machine13.

The British people had the same information as everyone else, which you call lies. "Invading a country for having a government you don't like" is an absolute false statement. A government that paid $25,000 for every suicide attack in Israel. A government that actually used WMDs on their own people. A government that ignored all UN mandates. They were more than "don't like", they were a threat to Americans, to border nations, to Israel. In the aftermath of 9/11, the world gave Iraq notice which they chose to ignore. It wasn't just a blitzkrieg invasion overnight, it was discussed, voted on, high level negotiations for months. "Consequences were worth it," debatable since Iraq was falsely used as a rod to hit Bush with, leading directly to a dunce as president [the surge will not work-Obama) and the wrong people that lead our congress (war is lost-Reid) and (grotesque mistake- Pelosi). What stands is a democracy, an enemy turned ally, threats removed but at a high price of blood and treasure. --Jpatt 12:16, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
 I am British, and the talk was about WMDs and that we would wait for the weapon inspectors report.  We did not, there is a judicial inquiry ongoing into wether a crime was commited by members of the then goverment in the report to parliament leading to the vote to go to war being passed, the death of a UK weapons inspector is also being reinvestigated as the orginal report has been shown to have been compromised (he died in suspicous circumstances in the UK after revealing that his report had been altered before being delivered to parliament).  Saddam had to go yes, lying to parliament and people was not the way to go about it.

What's the mission? Who's the enemy?

The Barack Obama gooberment attacks words "War on Terror" while our soldiers are attacking the real terrorists with bombs and bullets. Wars over America. --Jpatt 20:29, 2 February 2009 (EST)

"War on Terror" or "War OF Terror?"

I think at this point we can admit that Borat had a point, and that the War on Terror has become a War OF Terror. Agree or disagree?--Geopolitician (talk) 18:12, September 23, 2022 (EDT)

Well, I'll agree it's hard to have a military intervention against a nebulous, undefined concept. RobSIch bin ein breakfast taco 23:23, September 23, 2022 (EDT)