2006-06-27 06:41:55 · 7 answers · asked by I-C-U 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I suppose it depends on what the mission was. If it was "to end terror", then no, as there have been terrorist attacks all over the world since then. If it was to find "Weapons of Mass Destruction", remember that was the reason for the war, then no. If it was to liberate Iraq, then I would have to say no way in hell. If the mission was to get control of Iraqi oil, then he accomplished his mission. If the mission was to distract the American public, then I would personally say yes.
2006-06-27 06:48:23 · answer #1 · answered by Thinkithtrough 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah. It wasn't that big of a deal either.
The Mission was accomplished. People assume that an entire war can be sumed up to entail a mission. Far from the truth.
2006-06-27 13:45:22 · answer #2 · answered by aliunt 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This mission?
"A banner proclaiming "mission accomplished" on the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln, where President George W. Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq. "
Self-explanatory, isn't it?
2006-06-27 13:43:59 · answer #3 · answered by Pitchow! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Three years and something like 2000 military deaths ago. March of 2003.
2006-06-27 13:56:04 · answer #4 · answered by Truth 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam was thrown out of Baghdad and a constitutional Government replaced him.....
2006-06-27 14:09:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only in his own feeble and alcoholic mind.
2006-06-27 14:39:22 · answer #6 · answered by Dr.Feelgood 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah repukes????? I thought we already won? How can we surrender?
2006-06-27 13:48:07 · answer #7 · answered by Franklin 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋