# What?? The mission accomplished sign on the carrier didn't mean Iraq?? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 27, 2003, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084 "2003-09-27T00:49:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2003, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/61 "2003-09-28T12:52:41Z")
You are confusing a Mission with the Reasons behind the mission. The mission is to take the hill. The reason is to prevent the enemy from occupying it and shooting you from it. The mission was to enact a Regime Change (heard that term before?), removing Saddam Hussien from power by use of force. The reasons were all that stuff you mentioned, which have not happened or were based on lies or didn’t make any sense at all. I am not a Bush supporter. I was not happy with the reasons used to justify this latest war, and I do not approve of many or even most of this administration’s actions. But if you are going to attack the guy, use the right words, and attack for the right reasons. I personally do not like Hillary Clinton at all, but I have done the same thing to those who attacked her with the wrong words or for something she didn’t do. Bush has a LOT of things on which to base Pit Threads, I just think this one is weak. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2003, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/62 "2003-09-28T15:25:55Z")
Since more allied troops have been killed _since_ we took the “hill” than during the actual battle for it, I would say the goal to “stop the enemy from shooting at us” has gone pretty piss-poorly. “Mission Accomplished” was supposed to be a not-so-subtle suggestion that we had “won” the war in Iraq when, in fact, it was just beginning. We are now mired in a quagmire (yes, a _quagmire_) of trying to mainitain a military occupation in the face of guerilla warfare, a populace that hates us and wants us to leave, declining morale in the troops, a crisis in being able to replace those troops with fresh ones, and a giant, unproductive drain on the US economy. We have no vision for Iraq, no exit strategy, no plan, no endgame, no fucking clue what to do now that we’re in there. Bush is now reduced to trying to beg the UN for help but his raging ego won’t allow him to admit that he lied or made a mistake and it won’t allow him to relinquish any US authority so the UN has no choice but to tell him to piss off. We are stuck with a giant fucking mess in Iraq that’s going to drag on for years and will continue to hurt the US economically and militarily and help no one but Dick Cheney and his Haliburton cronies. Not only has Bush abjectly failed to even come close to achieving the long term (if illegal) objectives in Iraq. He hasn’t even achieved the short term (and equally illegal) goal of simply securing the country militarily. Oh…and wasn’t another one of those “missions” to kill Saddam Hussein? ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2003, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/63 "2003-09-28T15:37:31Z")
I wish Bush had already “illegally” secured Iraq. If he had then I could metaphorically spit on the grave of one of the worst killers in my lifetime – Saddam, not Bush. Just to be really clear. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2003, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/64 "2003-09-28T16:48:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBill \* > \*\*The “war plane” is the only kind of plane that traps on a carrier, those “peace planes” don’t have that hook thingy underneath. \*\* This is definitely not my field of expertise, but I was under the impression that a helicopter, not another fixed-wing craft, would be the alternative mode of air transport for such an occasion. I belive that helicopters have less stringent dress codes. > [@](#): > > [http://www.cursor.org/0803\_archive.htm](http://www.cursor.org/0803_archive.htm) > > The White House appears to have recently changed a Web site [headline](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/iraq/20030501-15.html), that according to Washington Post [reporters](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A11485-2003Aug18¬Found=true) and this [news release](http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/05/iraq-030501-wh01.htm), had read: “President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.” > [@](#): > > [\*\*President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended > \*\*](http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/05/iraq-030501-wh01.htm) > > For Immediate Release > Office of the Press Secretary > May 1, 2003 > > President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended > Remarks by the President from the USS Abraham Lincoln > At Sea Off the Coast of San Diego, California > [@](#): > > [**Bush Revises Views On ‘Combat’ in Iraq**](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11485-2003Aug18?language=printer) > > The headline on the White House site above Bush’s May 1 speech is “President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.” > Since then, a search of Bush speeches on the White House Web site indicates, the president had not spoken of the guerrilla fighting in Iraq as combat until this interview; he had earlier spoken of the “cessation of combat” in Iraq. > _© 2003 The Washington Post Company_ Unless this’s all part of the Liberal Media Conspiracy[sup]TM[/sup] against Bush, it does indeed seem that a certain idea was meant to be conveyed. It just so happens that it was another misunderestimated idea about Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2003, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/65 "2003-09-28T16:49:24Z")
**DtC** , the goals have gone piss-poorly, and that enemy is still shooting at us, no questions there at all. I am not at all contradicting anything you said in your most recent post, with the possible exception of having a stated mission of killing Hussein, I am not sure if that was a mission of his body would not have upset anyone at the Pentagon. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2003, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/66 "2003-09-28T18:14:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBill \* > You are confusing a Mission with the Reasons behind the mission. > > The mission is to take the hill. The reason is to prevent the enemy from occupying it and shooting you from it. The problem with that is that here in the UK we were told that Saddam had WMD’s which could hit British bases (e.g. in Cyprus) and that they would be ready for combat in 45 minutes. All this was stated by Prime Minister Blair to our Parliament as why we had to support the US going to war **immediately** , despite no UN approval. The Hutton enquiry has now established that our intelligence was that Saddam had only battlefield WMDs, which were not immediately available, would not reach Cyprus and would not be used unless the US and UK attacked him. (Presumably the UK shared this intelligence with the US. :rolleyes: ). So Saddam was no threat at all. This means that what you put above simply doesn’t apply. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBill \* > The mission was to enact a Regime Change (heard that term before?), removing Saddam Hussien from power by use of force. The reasons were all that stuff you mentioned, which have not happened or were based on lies or didn’t make any sense at all. I am not a Bush supporter. I was not happy with the reasons used to justify this latest war, and I do not approve of many or even most of this administration’s actions. Um, the ‘mission’ was to force Saddam to comply with UN resolutions concerning WMDs. (Of course the fact nobody can find any might be worth mentioning.) Or you are saying that anyone can decide to attack a country to force ‘Regime Change’? Does that make (to take a sickening example) 9/11 ‘legal’, then? ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2003, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/67 "2003-09-28T20:53:42Z")
The hill example was just that, an example. It had nothing to do with Iraq. You are right in that it doesn’t apply, it wasn’t meant to. Lies were told to the world in advance of the most recent war, I have no doubt about that. The US and British Military (and other nations) were not tasked with the mission of forcing any compliance. They were used as the threat for the governments to use to make Saddam comply. The mission, once the bullets began flying, had nothing to do with UN Resolutions, all that was in the past. I am not “saying that anyone can decide to attack a country to force ‘Regime Change’?”, I am saying the mission of the military was to oust the government, and that was done. I do not defend the war, I do not declare it was in accordance with international law, I do not say it should have been done without UNSC approval. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2003, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/68 "2003-09-28T21:06:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBill \* > You are confusing a Mission with the Reasons behind the mission. > > The mission is to take the hill. The reason is to prevent the enemy from occupying it and shooting you from it. > > The mission was to enact a Regime Change (heard that term before?), removing Saddam Hussien from power by use of force. The reasons were all that stuff you mentioned, which have not happened or were based on lies or didn’t make any sense at all. I am not a Bush supporter. I was not happy with the reasons used to justify this latest war, and I do not approve of many or even most of this administration’s actions. I see where you’re coming from, **Bill**. But even as you lay it out here, it still doesn’t fly. Regardless of the reasons for the mission, if the mission is accomplished, we can come home; we’re done. At best, by your terminology, there were multiple missions, or one big mission with multiple stages. We accomplished Stage 1, the removal of Saddam and his henchmen from power. But we’ve got a long way to go before the full mission is accomplished (assuming we ever do), which is why we still have ~138,000 troops over there. Getting back to the original debate, I think it’s kinda silly overall, since this will ultimately play out in the court of public opinion. If things are going well in Iraq this time next year, then Bush’s campaign will be using that shot in their campaign ads. If things are going to hell in a handbasket over there, then the Democratic candidate will be doing so. What I can’t see a debate over is that that banner was there because the Bush PR people wanted it to be, and why they wanted it there. They were trying to get an image in the public’s mind, and they _weren’t_ trying to convey detail in that image on the level of whether a certain aircraft carrier and its crew had accomplished _its_ particular mission. I’m not saying this is any more immoral than the usual day-by-day practice of politics tends to be. The Bushies were trying to make as much political hay as possible from the war; big surprise. That’s what politicians do. But it’s silly to argue that they were using that banner to convey a more detailed and specific message than the obvious one. Images just don’t work that way. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2003, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/69 "2003-09-28T22:46:27Z")
I understand your meaning too, Bill. But it’s still retroactively redefining the goals to match what you’ve already done, then declaring success. It’s an ancient tactic, and still effective if not looked at closely. Some of us [brushing sleeve and looking bashful] predicted that’s exactly what these guys _would_ do. But the list of goals of this war did _and do_ include all those things we’ve listed, both real and imaginary, and they all were _and are_ part of the _military_’s mission as well. If the meaning is constrained to simply what the Lincoln’s crew did, you have to restrict it even further to searching and destroying Iraqi aircraft (weren’t any) and a few tactical bombing raids. No doubt they did everything they were asked/ordered to do, and well. But the intended audience for this photo op was not just them, and the administration’s new-found insistence otherwise is simply craven. Or, judging from Rice’s tone of voice while repeating the same fantasies on the news shows this morning, desperate and pathetic. Take your pick. Who do you think was intended to be influenced by that entire photo op exercise? If it was just the Lincoln’s crew, wouldn’t it have been staged entirely differently, if done at all? C’mon now, guys. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/70 "2003-09-29T00:26:33Z")
All I wanna know is, when the Re-Elect George W. Bush In 2004 campaign starts replaying that carrier footage in their commercials, are they going to digitally edit that banner to read “Mission Ongoing”? ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/71 "2003-09-29T11:08:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBill \* > The hill example was just that, an example. It had nothing to do with Iraq. You are right in that it doesn’t apply, it wasn’t meant to. Yes, I understand you were giving an example. I just thought it was noteworthy to mention the coincidence (that Saddam was NOT going to fire on the UK). > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBill \* > Lies were told to the world in advance of the most recent war, I have no doubt about that. The US and British Military (and other nations) were not tasked with the mission of forcing any compliance. They were used as the threat for the governments to use to make Saddam comply. The mission, once the bullets began flying, had nothing to do with UN Resolutions, all that was in the past. I am not “saying that anyone can decide to attack a country to force ‘Regime Change’?”, I am saying the mission of the military was to oust the government, and that was done. I do not defend the war, I do not declare it was in accordance with international law, I do not say it should have been done without UNSC approval. Clearly you are not a politician, since you are both honest and reasonable. :eek: 🆒 I appreciate that the military have the task of doing the actual dangerous work for the politicians. I would like to know what you think would have happened if, after say a week of the war, Saddam had announced that he would immediately comply with all UN resolutions. Would the war have continued? ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/72 "2003-09-29T11:15:38Z")
If he sued for peace, I would say the advancing would stop and the terms given by the US/British would have been for him to leave the country with all his people and a laundry list of other things. Only saying he would comply with the resolutions at that time would be not enough, in my opinion, there would be much more stringent demands from the Allies. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/73 "2003-09-29T11:38:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by glee \* > \*\*I would like to know what you think would have happened if, after say a week of the war, Saddam had announced that he would immediately comply with all UN resolutions. Would the war have continued? \*\* > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by UncleBill_ > \*\* If he sued for peace, I would say the advancing would stop and the terms given by the US/British would have been for him to leave the country with all his people and a laundry list of other things. Only saying he would comply with the resolutions at that time would be not enough, in my opinion, there would be much more stringent demands from the Allies.\*\* Grow the fuck up, you two. There’s no evidence whatsoever that he wasn’t already complying with the UN resolutions, apart from the thoroughly discredited bullshit presented by Powell. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/74 "2003-09-29T13:09:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBill \* > If he sued for peace, I would say the advancing would stop and the terms given by the US/British would have been for him to leave the country with all his people and a laundry list of other things. Only saying he would comply with the resolutions at that time would be not enough, in my opinion, there would be much more stringent demands from the Allies. No, I **don’t** mean Saddam sues for peace. I mean he agrees to comply with all UN resolutions, allows all UN weapon inspectors in and proves he has destroyed all WMDs etc. At this point, what is Bush going to do? Are you saying he is still going to insist that Saddam leave or be overthrown? And if so, under what authority are these Allies going to continue the war? What exactly was the mission, and when was it announced? ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/75 "2003-09-29T13:13:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > Grow the fuck up, you two. > > There’s no evidence whatsoever that he wasn’t already complying with the UN resolutions, apart from the thoroughly discredited bullshit presented by Powell. Oh dear. :rolleyes: Is our civilised discourse too deep for you? :wally My point is: what if Saddam **clearly complied** with all UN resolutions, including providing satisfactory evidence that all WMDs had been destroyed. What would Bush have done? What exactly was the US ‘mission’? ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/76 "2003-09-29T13:40:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by glee \* > The Hutton enquiry has now established that our intelligence was that Saddam had only battlefield WMDs, which were not immediately available, would not reach Cyprus and would not be used unless the US and UK attacked him. (Presumably the UK shared this intelligence with the US. :rolleyes: ). > > So Saddam was no threat at all. This means that what you put above simply doesn’t apply. Not only that but Hutton has shown that Downing Street removed a section of the original intelligence report that said the threat of terrorism would most likely rise due to action in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/77 "2003-09-29T14:37:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jack Batty \* > **Christ, the only thing missing was Queen’s _We Are the Champions_ blasting in the back ground.** It wasn’t? ☹ I had the sound off, but I had assumed it was playing. \ ---
**Author:** ![keithnmick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90db22/32.png) [@keithnmick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/keithnmick)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/78 "2003-09-29T15:52:41Z")
Does anyone have a link to the carrier scene as a whole - with the banner, the presidents, the flightsuit all in one? ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/79 "2003-09-29T18:10:17Z")
[Dig it](http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1089382,00.html), **keithnmick**. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/80 "2003-09-29T19:06:37Z")
The gist of what annoys me is this: When it was politically expedient for one impression to be made, they made no qualms in allowing it. Now that it is politically expedient to deny that the impression was their intent, they try that spin. It falls under the “Insult my intelligence” method of politicking. See “I did not have sexual relations…” for another example. I think it should be beneath an administration to use 7th grade type argument styles as the official line. What’s next? A 4th grade rendition of “Ny-Uh. Nyah-huh. Ny-uh. Nyah-huh…”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084.md?page=5)