It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Bush: 'Nothing less than victory' in Iraq

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   
In today's national radio address President Bush said that pulling out of Iraq now is not an option. In bold language the President made clear that there is no other option to victory against the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. "We will settle for nothing less than victory". Meanwhile a recent Gallup poll shows 6 in 10 Americans said the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq...
 



www.msnbc.msn.com
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday that pulling out of Iraq now is not an option, rejecting calls by some lawmakers and polls indicating many Americans are growing weary of the war.

"The terrorists and insurgents are trying to get us to retreat. Their goal is to get us to leave before Iraqis have had a chance to show the region what a government that is elected and truly accountable to its citizens can do for its people," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

"We will settle for nothing less than victory" over terrorists there, he said later.

Bush's radio address is part of a series of appearances and speeches in the coming weeks aimed at countering poll ratings that are near their lowest levels on both the Iraq war and the economy. Bush said his administration is committed to success in both areas of concern for Americans.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Much more in the above linked full article.

Though a quick victory in Iraq would be nice I have to wonder if it is possible?

Is victory in Iraq possible at all?

How will Victory in Iraq be defined?

Perhaps a nation can win a war and lose it in the eyes of the world and even it's own people.




posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Though a quick victory in Iraq would be nice I have to wonder if it is possible?


More relevant is to ask if victory is the point and what kind of victory are we attempting to achieve........

I find that I can't listen to Bush speak, or even read his words.......it's like listening to a grown man infantizing a litter of puppies........


[edit on 18-6-2005 by MemoryShock]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Nothing less than victory... lol, thats not going to happen, we will be in iraq for another 50 years if bush keep acting like this...



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
This is an interesting piece I came across today, especially he comments in the last three paragraphs.

www.boston.com...



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Is he using the same definition of victory as everyone else is?

(1) Final and complete defeat of the enemy in a mili­tary engagement. (2) Any successful struggle against an oppo­nent or obstacle. (3) The state of having triumphed.


That is all well and good to say. But this is not longer the elections, and rhetoric isn't going to work anymore.

Maybe it is time to be a little more specific Mr. President, the troops and Iraqi's deserve that.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
What Bush means by victory is having complete control over Iraq's government, oil and commerce.

You know, why not let Iraq become our 51st state?

Did Bush mention anything about our depleting military?



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Yeah look it up. P2OG is a program that operates as a counterinsurgency, but it is our guys, our Hessians that keep up the chaos for more war money.

Face it and distinguish the actual insurgency, which may exist, with the provocative insurgency designed for Hegalian effect, the typical problem-reaction-solution. Think of it as fanning the flames of insurgency and keeping it going for so called fun and profit.

It may be difficult to grasp, but the President is not even leveling with the people consistently with earlier press releases. And now big government may sneak in another draft, something not just necessary because no one wants to go to Iraq, but for foul vaccinations into corporate profit, and depleted uranium hazards. It is more properly called ceramic depleted uranium dust, which is not safe, whereas depleted uranium ordnance sitting around waiting for combat is actually fairly harmless. Why would anyone want to go into combat with a zero chance of maintaining good health exposed to these things? Would you want to play your own plane fare back home after getting your limbs blown away, when you are mustered out of the service and deprived of medical care later? All of these things are documented.

It is bad enough but again, who wants to fight our own forces who are an artificial "insurgency," similar to what happened in Viet Nam. This whole approach catering to big war money and big debt is gravely flawed to say the least. On top of it all these big companies are giving back little or nothing to the larger social structure, due to the tax cuts, so do they have any incentive whatsoever to back off? Have a happy Diebold day with Bush as President for life along with all his other monkeys. Oh yeah when he wants victory, all he has to do is put out an executive order trashing P2OG.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by SkipShipman]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   
skipshipman, if you are talking about the effects of depleted uranium dust, you obiously know nothing about actaul studies and only rely on rhetoric to fan the fires of the argument.

How much DUP ammo was expended and detonated agaisnt armored targets in the last 20 years in iraq to create this "dust" which is the only way to really create it in combat.

Don't know that fact do you? Niether do I. Probly some military bean counter could. But the facts are there is a possibilty of harm caused by the dust yet no one has been able to find that magic number to understand how much harm could be caused by expended DUP munitions.

--- back on topic

No politician wants to bring back the draft. But with stop-loss measures and using an Emergancy force like the National guard in combat causes a lot of problems and has allready reduced the recruitment numbers of the "All volunteer army" If Bush mandated a draft, it almsot assures a Democratic victory in 2008. But if he can wait tell 2008 the Democratic president would be forced to do it, and end up being a one term president.

I would respect Bush a whole lot more, if he said "We need more troops in Iraq, so with apologies and deepest regrets I am asking congress to bring back the draft for a limited time until 2012 when all US troops will be pulled out of Iraq"

I won't hold my breath



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Bush and his administration as bit off more then they can true and are now just trying to save face anyway they can. Thing is all they have left now is words.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
The president is right when he said that getting out of Iraq is not an option.

To much money wasted and to much money involve, is more powerful forces than mere terrorist and the death of Innocent people including our troops.

The forces of corporative power and profits are not to be stop, not even with more death and destruction.

These people have invested to much money in Iraq and on our government to allowed a pull out in any near future.

So yes.......The president is right is not an option .



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
That's what your president and his cronies have their eyes on. They will never leave Iraq. Don't you realize that the longer the war goes on, the more money is made...not by your average Joe...but those who already have more money than they could ever spend. Never forget - more money is made in one day of war than in one year of peace.

And since army enrollments are down, the draft is coming next. They don't care how many young uneducated Americans they sacrifice. The rich will keep their kids out because they know who to speak to (or pay) to keep them out.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Victory in their backyard is going to be a hard thing to pull off especially with the borders wide assed open. You could nuke it but that would not do anything but get 'em pissed off even more and inflame Iran further. A pullout would show that they won but the real question that needs to be asked is why can't we pullout while other coalition forces fill the void? All we get from them is a bunch of talk. I am a results driven man and the other members of our coalition need to step up to the plate and do their part. Only then could we think about a withdrawl of forces and anything less is a victory in the insurgents eyes. At some point Bush must accept the writing on the wall and until he does, there are going to be more orders for bodybags. Rumsfeld and tricky Dick got their way in Iraq and I often wonder if they loose any sleep at night about the senseless shedding of our American blood for the oil we still do not have. Their plan? was not. It was a gamble that cost us and our children to follow a nightmare to pay off, that is if our economy does'nt colaspe in the process.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I have no idea what kind of victory Bush is looking for. He has Sadam. Does he actually think all the terrorist have addresses in Iraq alone? I had no problem with going in but I have lost sight as to why we are staying. I am beginning to think it is nothing more than ego that keeps us there. Is it possible we really just don't know how to leave? If so, why?



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
skipshipman, if you are talking about the effects of depleted uranium dust, you obiously know nothing about actaul studies and only rely on rhetoric to fan the fires of the argument.

How much DUP ammo was expended and detonated agaisnt armored targets in the last 20 years in iraq to create this "dust" which is the only way to really create it in combat.

Don't know that fact do you? Niether do I. Probly some military bean counter could. But the facts are there is a possibilty of harm caused by the dust yet no one has been able to find that magic number to understand how much harm could be caused by expended DUP munitions.

--- back on topic

No politician wants to bring back the draft. But with stop-loss measures and using an Emergancy force like the National guard in combat causes a lot of problems and has allready reduced the recruitment numbers of the "All volunteer army" If Bush mandated a draft, it almsot assures a Democratic victory in 2008. But if he can wait tell 2008 the Democratic president would be forced to do it, and end up being a one term president.


Maybe government holds off on the draft, since new technologies will remove living breathing soldiers with a conscience in preference to remote controlled machines. Then they may place these machines in the hands of the conscienceless supersoldier. It won't be hard with the army of kids training for the future with Doom III.
US plans 'robot troops' for Iraq

Try using Google before you assume ignorance is everywhere. For example
ceramic uranium oxide gas + battlefields


[edit on 18-6-2005 by SkipShipman]




top topics



 
0

log in

join