Conveniently, no one ever plays the whole "Mission Accomplished" speech. It gives a much different impression than the simplistic repetition of those two words. These are not the words of someone suggesting our work was done there. Some highlights:


We still have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous.

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave -- and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September
the 11th, 2001, and still goes on.

Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. As I speak, a special operations task force, led by the 82nd Airborne, is on the trail of the terrorists.....

America and our coalition will finish what we have begun.

From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down
al Qaeda killers. Nineteen months ago, I pledged that the terrorists would
not escape the patient justice of the United States.

Our war against terror is proceeding...

Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we.

The war on terror is not over. Free nations will press on to victory.

Conveniently, no one ever plays the whole "Mission Accomplished" speech. It gives a much different impression than the simplistic repetition of those two words.

Ok. The speech sent quite a bit different message than what the banner implied.

I can accept that.

But if that is indeed the case, then perhaps the thoroughly dishonest spin-doctors handling the Codpiece-Wearer in-Chief should NOT have chosen to orchestrate the event with the bullshit **Mission Accomplished** phrase serving as the overarching theme........!!!!!!!!!

You ever think of THAT?!?!?!?

....perhaps the thoroughly dishonest spin-doctors handling the Codpiece-Wearer in-Chief should NOT have chosen to orchestrate the event with the bullshit **Mission Accomplished** phrase serving as the overarching theme........!!!!!!!!!

You ever think of THAT?!?!?!?
The major combat operations (of which the aircraft carriers WERE a major part) were over.

Major the overarching theme came through because our unbiased media covered the banner more than the speech.

You ever think of THAT?!?!?!?!?!

The banner aside, the President himself said, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

Now that just wasn't a very accurate statement. People may only remember the banner, but the sentiment of the banner was reflected in his speech.

Major combat operations WERE over at that point.

If the media referred to this as the "we have more work to do" speech it would have been a more accurate description of it, but it wouldn't make the President look as bad.

Oh well, I guess we differ in our definition of "major."

Mine is in line with Tommy Franks' explanation.

Its quite a rich statement,now the work of reconstructing Iraq will begin,id like to think so,after the US bombed it into the dark ages,it has every right to rebuild it,pity about the 250,000 Iraqis who wont be around to help in reconstructing,Iraq was never a threat to US until it stuck its nose in,but then again,it does sit on the 2nd biggest deposit of the 'black stuff',thank fuck Ireland has no oil fields,we would have more americans here than we do on march 17..

Major combat operations WERE over at that point.Bwaaahahhaaaaaa. And were at peace right now...(car bomb explodes) now were at war(gunfire dies down)....now were at peace again...(Hummer explodes)now were at war(gunfire dies down)....peace...

Good one Brooks....hehehheee

"Major combat operations" has a specific definition in the military, not really related to whatever your opinion may be.

(Peace? Please see signature line)

Nor yours it appears.....

Actually, paul, in this instance Brooks knows what he is talking about and you do not.

Major combat operations were ended at the time the President gave his Mission Accomplished speech. What we have now are combat operations related to the post war phase in Iraq.

I was against going into Iraq. I thought we should have left Saddam in charge and simply reined him in. I also think the post war planning was abyssmally mismanaged. The coalition should not have disbanded the army but simply should have culled the upper echelon. The Ba'ath Party should not have been banned from politics but used to form a workable infrastructure. The Sunnis should not have been marginalized but integrated fully into the new government.

There were lots of mistakes made and mistakes are still being made, but Brooks is right when he says major combat operations were over.

I have no idea what the US Dept of Defence would gage as 'major' operations.

Paul C

Its quite a rich statement,now the work of reconstructing Iraq will begin,id like to think so,after the US bombed it into the dark ages,it has every right to rebuild it,pity about the 250,000 Iraqis who wont be around to help in reconstructing,Iraq was never a threat to US until it stuck its nose in,but then again,it does sit on the 2nd biggest deposit of the 'black stuff',thank fuck Ireland has no oil fields,we would have more americans here than we do on march 17..

I'm not sure if it's worth responding to you, but I've nothing better to do right now.

You speak of the Iraqis who died when the U.S. invaded Iraq in '03. Yet you conviently ignore the hundreds of thousands that died at the hands of Saddam. This is one of those things. IF the U.S. can stay the course and IF the Iraqis absorb the correct lessons on Capitalism, Democracy, Religious Freedom and human rights then, down the road, when their country is thriving, they are not going to remember the unintended casualties of the Iraq war, they will remember a just country that came and freed them of Saddam and taught them how to thrive in the 21st century. This Iraq thing isn't going to be quick or easy and it's already cost the lives of many Iraqis and Americans, but I sincerely believe that true world peace will come when everyone on the planet has the same access to the rights, freedoms, dignities and oppurtunities we enjoy here in the U.S.

You've also mention the oil in Iraq. It IS in the interest of the U.S. to have access to oil, but then again, name me a country that doesn't look after its own interests first last and foremost.

Iraq was never a threat to US until it stuck its nose in,

Iraq was a threat to its neighbors, it was a threat to Israel and it was working on ICBMs, drone planes, cruise missles and other such nasties that would've made Saddam a real threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East, dammit.

Ireland has no oil fields,we would have more americans here than we do on march 17..What's your precedent for that, our invasion of Mexico or Canada?

Yo Darth you claim Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi also,sure he did,so your putting the US on a par with Saddam.Als mac,if I need oil,I go to the store and get some,if their out,their out.Believe me,the Iraqi people will never forget the day you boys came to town..

You tell me Brooks,some time in the future,whod you say would be the best 'target'..

You tell me Brooks,some time in the future,whod you say would be the best 'target'..I don't know what you mean.

Yo Darth you claim Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi also,sure he did,so your putting the US on a par with Saddam.

No Paul, I don't gauge America's actions in Iraq by body count, which by the way you are over exagerating by a factor of ten. I gauge America's actions by the fact that we've rid Iraq of Saddam, we're rebuilding roads, schools, bridges and other infrastructure and we've put the Iraqis on the path to a form of government that has given the West a level of material, cultural and spiritual wealth that is unkown in human history, dammit.


You don't happen to be some teen do you?

No Paul, I don't gauge America's actions in Iraq by body count, which by the way you are over exagerating by a factor of ten. I gauge America's actions by the fact that we've rid Iraq of Saddam, we're rebuilding roads, schools, bridges and other infrastructure and we've put the Iraqis on the path to a form of government that has given the West a level of material, cultural and spiritual wealth that is unkown in human history, dammit.http://electroniciraq.net/uploads/baghdad-quality-of-life.jpg

You speak of the Iraqis who died when the U.S. invaded Iraq in '03. Yet you conviently ignore the hundreds of thousands that died at the hands of Saddam.

While you conveniently ignore the fact that United States Corporations (with the approval of the Reagan/Bush Administration) sold Saddam Hussein the chemical and biological weaponry that he killed them with.

http://ice.citizenlab.org/archives/images/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

You're right Free.
We have to protect ourselves by having no allies and trading or exchanging nothing with the rest of the world. Ever.
You never know what they'll eventually do.

Somehow i doubt the ONLY weapons Saddam EVER had were the ones we sold him 23 years ago.... if you think that you are the biggest idiot on the face of the earth.

and Darth was right... all of the "100,000 Iraqi's" numbers are bogus IMO... tell me something... do we go around the streets of Iraq with machine guns, and if we see an Iraqi we gun them down? No questions asked? Because that is what the FT's are making it out to be. Iraqi's HAVE died through friendly fire, and even through corrupt military leaders... but the 100,000 number is bullshit... i'd like to know where that number was first contrived...

Our intent isn't to kill people... Saddam DID have that intent, in order to spread fear so that he could stay in power. Anyone care to argue me on that? Anyone???

Up to the present day approx: 39000 Iraqi civilians and police have died since US invasion,but arent you ignoring how many died in bombing Iraq,how about after Kuwait,there was 100,000 Iraqi conscripts killed on the Basra road alone,but I guess they wouldnt suit the argument..

Brooks:I was asking you ''who would be the next best target''.Within the next 50 years oil will be,god knows how much,and seeing it looks like China and the US are gonna corner the oil market,whos gonna be invaded for its oil,sorry,who is gonna be liberated,and introduced to democracy by the US..

While you conveniently ignore the fact that United States Corporations (with the approval of the Reagan/Bush Administration) sold Saddam Hussein the chemical and biological weaponry that he killed them with.

You're right Free.
We have to protect ourselves by having no allies and trading or exchanging nothing with the rest of the world. Ever.
You never know what they'll eventually do.

If you have to exaggerate my point to make me wrong, you've already given up.
Brooks is a quitter....

Brooks is a quitter....While I'll grant you it was a bit of a stretch, it is the ONLY logical solution to the problem Freethinker was positing on us. Namely, how do you prevent former allies from using past largesse in a negative way. Only answer: by never giving them anything dangerous.

If you can't think of another guaranteed way, then I haven't exaggerated.

Ive always found the term 'friendly fire' an amusing one......................

No Paul, I don't gauge America's actions in Iraq by body count, which by the way you are over exagerating by a factor of ten.

That would depend on what method you use to calculate the casualties.


I gauge America's actions by the fact that we've rid Iraq of Saddam,...

We did do that.


we're rebuilding roads, schools, bridges and other infrastructure

Note you had to use the word "rebuilding". After all, the stuff was probably fine before we invaded.


and we've put the Iraqis on the path to a form of government that has given the West a level of material, cultural and spiritual wealth that is unkown in human history, dammit.

Therefore, it must be what's best for them too, and everyone else in the world as well, and if they can't make it for themselves we'll give it to them at the point of a gun, whether they want it or not, on our terms. Go USA!

No Paul, I don't gauge America's actions in Iraq by body count, which by the way you are over exagerating by a factor of ten. I gauge America's actions by the fact that we've rid Iraq of Saddam, we're rebuilding roads, schools, bridges and other infrastructure and we've put the Iraqis on the path to a form of government that has given the West a level of material, cultural and spiritual wealth that is unkown in human history, dammit.


You don't happen to be some teen do you?
So your saying 'the end justifies the means',smells of Imperialism from here.....

So your saying 'the end justifies the means',smells of Imperialism from here.....Paul, in almost every event in history, the means weren't worth it to somebody. The means are always bad.
When you think about it "the ends justifies the means" isn't particularly profound.

Well Brooks,if it isnt 'profound' that tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead today,who wouldnt have been,if America hadnt decided to free them,I dont know what is.....

Well Brooks,if it isnt 'profound' that tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead today,who wouldnt have been,if America hadnt decided to free them,I dont know what is.....You completely missed my point.
WWI's means were very bad. WWII's means were very bad. To some American mothers in WWII, those means did not justify that end.
No matter what the event is, some people will say it was worth it, and some will say it wasn't. Therefore "ends justifies the means" is not an imperial philosphy, it's a case-by-case opinion everyone forms. Not that profound.
That's all I meant.

So your saying 'the end justifies the means',smells of Imperialism from here.....

Whats wrong with that? How does justifying the means by the end result lead to imperialism?

I think that is a completely acceptible way to determine if a certain action should have been taken (though, as brooks said, it depends on whose side you are looking at it from).

btw - is your avatar from the long kiss goodnight?

You're right Free.
We have to protect ourselves by having no allies and trading or exchanging nothing with the rest of the world. Ever.
You never know what they'll eventually do.

You should not be allowed to use the words -- ""If you have to exaggerate my point to make me wrong, you've already given up** -- anywhere in your postings.

What you just did was the most blatant example of hyperbolic exaggeration i've seen in a loooooooong time.

While I'll grant you it was a bit of a stretch, it is the ONLY logical solution to the problem Freethinker was positing on us. Namely, how do you prevent former allies from using past largesse in a negative way. Only answer: by never giving them anything dangerous.

ROTFL.

What UTTER fucking bullshit.

BTW....interesting use of the term **largesse** in place of the (factual) term *weapons of mass destruction*, .......as a way of avoiding the fact that Reagan/Bush authorized chemical and biological weapons to be sold to the dictator Hussein.

""How do you prevent former allies from using past 'largesse' in a negative way?"".......you ask??????

How about NOT selling chemical and biological weapons to a goddamned tinpot dictator that (your soulless rightwing cabal will a few years later be telling the gullible sheep of America) is some sort of "evil monster".........?!?!?!?!

HUH?!?!.....how about THAT for a possible other 'solution'?!?!?!?

Free, the first bomb dropped on Tokyo in WWII had a medal attached to it that the Japanese had awarded to General Mitscher. You seem to forget that these "alliances" go bad all the time.

The deal with Hussein/Reagan/Bush and its bad result doesn't make them "soulless", they just used awful judgement. And yes, your only way to avoid this is to never consider an ally trustworthy and not give them any technology, weapons or alternate use devices.

Now let's talk about Clinton/Albright/Carter/North Korea and nukes.

Free, the first bomb dropped on Tokyo in WWII had a medal attached to it that the Japanese had awarded to General Mitscher.

Uhhhh......ok.

The deal with Hussein/Reagan/Bush and its bad result doesn't make them "soulless", they just used awful judgement.

First, Reagan/Bush knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and they knew EXACTLY what sort of leader Hussein was......they sold him the weapons anyway, because they ---like every other Washington politician-- are lackeys of the military/Industrial complex and its owners.


And yes, your only way to avoid this is to never consider an ally trustworthy and not give them any technology, weapons or alternate use devices.

Nonsense. The way to avoid it is to deal (in terms of selling weapons of mass destruction) with friendly governments that are led by democratic leaders, instead of "holy" emperors, dictators and despots.

Now let's talk about Clinton/Albright/Carter/North Korea and nukes.

Knock your fucking self out. Talk about it all you like. I'll listen.

Nonsense. The way to avoid it is to deal (in terms of selling weapons of mass destruction) with friendly governments that are led by democratic leaders, instead of "holy" emperors, dictators and despots. Yes, democratic governments are the best for everyone. That's why we're in Iraq.
You have accidentally swerved into the truth.

Yes, democratic governments are the best for everyone. That's why we're in Iraq.
You have accidentally swerved into the truth.
The people of Iraq are paying a very expensive price,for the gift America is giving them.

To quote you on another thread, some Iraqis will feel "the ends justified the means" (not to all of them, obviously)

To quote you on another thread, some Iraqis will feel "the ends justified the means" (not to all of them, obviously) right their the ones called terrorists. All terrorists think the ends justify the means.

To quote you on another thread, some Iraqis will feel "the ends justified the means" (not to all of them, obviously)
No the dead ones wont...

All terrorists think the ends justify the means.

Especially the ones in the West, who wear three piece suits and sit in the halls of power.

Yes, democratic governments are the best for everyone. That's why we're in Iraq.
Much too simplistic Brooks. That's not why we there and if you truly believe that then I have a bridge to sell you. The government we are installing in Iraq does not resemble a democracy at all. When all is said and done, the Cheney/Rumsfeld vision for Iraq makes the most powerful person in Iraq will be the US ambassador, not some tool that is "elected" by the Iraqis.

No the dead ones wont...Thank you for re-stating my obvious point. Too subtle I guess.

The government we are installing in Iraq does not resemble a democracy at all. And why not?

right their the ones called terrorists. All terrorists think the ends justify the means.In your mind, it seems no Iraqis want us there. That's simply not true. You're too reliant on the media which, even Free acknowledges, is giving a more negative picture of the reality.

In your mind, it seems no Iraqis want us there. That's simply not true. You're too reliant on the media which, even Free acknowledges, is giving a more negative picture of the reality.
Do you have access to some other source of information,that we dont.

Oh I wish I could find it...

There was one extremely pro-US Iraqi blogger. He was the pride and joy of the reactionaries over here. Then the US needlessly murdered his cousin (I think he was one of the guys forced into the river). He question this and the US response and was immediatly attacked by his "fans".

ahh here it is - http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/archives/2004_01_01_healingiraq_archive.html

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/

BTW heres a great Iraqi blog-
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/