SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   Fact? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=150761)

Max2147 04-19-09 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by August (Post 1087004)
Lets get this straight once and for all. It wasn't a stunt, at least not one having anything to do with Bush or the end of the war.

The carrier Bush gave the speech on had just completed a 6 month tour of duty in the gulf and was on it's way home. That mission accomplished sign was put up by the ships command for the crews benefit and was in reference to the ships successful deployment, much like how submariners will tie a broomstick to their periscope to signify a successful cruise, NOT the end of a war that was still very much being actively fought.

Now, were Bushes PR people wrong for letting him be photographed with that sign in the background? The "hindsight is 20-20" answer is yes, given the incorrect assumptions our foreign friends have had over this for over half a decade now.

But one also has to question how much of these incorrect assumptions are related to their deep seated anti-Bush prejudices? After all I've never heard people so predisposed to hating a man as Euros are about our former president.
Erm, not really. Bush declared the end of major combat operations on that ship as well. He said that we had prevailed in the Iraq War. Soon after that he said about Iraq "that mission has been accomplished." The "Mission Accomplished" line was also in the initial draft of the aircraft carrier speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished

It's Wikipedia, but the article is pretty well footnoted with reputable sources.

In my opinion, the mistake wasn't the sign, the mistake was declaring the end of major combat operations at that point. Anybody with a modicum of knowledge of pre-Saddam Iraq should have known that was a major mistake.

August 04-19-09 11:27 PM
Right from the Wiki article: Bush's own words:
"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous.""Our mission continues...The War on Terror continues, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide."Doesn't sound too "over" to me.

As a matter of fact the only part of his entire speech that might support your argument is: "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." but even that is no official indication that the war was being declared "over".

Aramike 04-19-09 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 1086881)
Yes but wars have military missions. :D
So do many other things.

But what has been happening for the last few years in Iraq can hardly be considered a war in the traditional sense.

Max2147 04-19-09 11:37 PM
He was saying that the War on Terror was ongoing, not that the Iraq War was ongoing. His comment on Iraq makes it sound like a policing issue, not a war. It's sort of an "Iraq is done... now we move on to other parts of the War on Terror."

I can clearly remember the speech being billed at the time as the end of the Iraq War.

Max2147 04-19-09 11:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike (Post 1087129)
So do many other things.

But what has been happening for the last few years in Iraq can hardly be considered a war in the traditional sense.
There was a pretty wide ranging civil war going on for a while, with lots of different groups fighting each other. Most groups were more intent on attacking each other than going after the US.

That's another reason why the statistic on the Iraq deaths is so misleading. US deaths in Iraq have only been a small portion of the deaths over there. The vast majority of the violent deaths in Iraq since the invasion have been Iraqis killing Iraqis or at least Muslim terrorists killing Iraqis.

Aramike 04-19-09 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max2147 (Post 1087130)
He was saying that the War on Terror was ongoing, not that the Iraq War was ongoing. His comment on Iraq makes it sound like a policing issue, not a war. It's sort of an "Iraq is done... now we move on to other parts of the War on Terror."

I can clearly remember the speech being billed at the time as the end of the Iraq War.
If the objective of the war was to take Saddam out of power and to remove Iraq as a threat from the world stage, Bush was exactly right - the war had been won.

What happened after that was not much more than terrorism and the policing of it.

In any case, if this really has been a "war" since Bush made his infamous declaration, it probably has the lowest casualty rate per year of any major war in history.

August 04-20-09 12:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max2147 (Post 1087130)
He was saying that the War on Terror was ongoing, not that the Iraq War was ongoing. His comment on Iraq makes it sound like a policing issue, not a war. It's sort of an "Iraq is done... now we move on to other parts of the War on Terror."
I don't see how you get that from what he said: "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous". That clearly implies that pacification efforts were still ongoing.

Quote:
I can clearly remember the speech being billed at the time as the end of the Iraq War.
Well, that's been the whole problem now isn't it?

Who billed it that way? The same people who said that the surge would not work? That the coalition would suffer enormous casualties at the hands of the Republican Guard? That invading Iraq would increase the chances of another 9-11 happening? It's obvious that there was a concerted effort by the media to read negativity into everything that Bush did or said and Mission Accomplished is a prime example of it.

Max2147 04-20-09 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by August (Post 1087137)
I don't see how you get that from what he said: "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous". That clearly implies that pacification efforts were still ongoing.

Well, that's been the whole problem now isn't it?

Who billed it that way? The same people who said that the surge would not work? That the coalition would suffer enormous casualties at the hands of the Republican Guard? That invading Iraq would increase the chances of another 9-11 happening? It's obvious that there was a concerted effort by the media to read negativity into everything that Bush did or said and Mission Accomplished is a prime example of it.
"Pacification efforts" are very different than outright war, or whatever we've been fighting in Iraq since 2003.

The Bush people were the ones who billed it as the end of the war. At the time, it was seen as a good move. It was supposed to be a triumphant capstone on a quick and easy war. The stigma of the speech and the sign didn't come until several months later.

As far as the casualty rate, US casualties have been low for a war. However, Iraqi civilian/'good guy' casualties have been much higher, although getting any sort of a firm number is impossible. As I said earlier, the violence in Iraq can best be characterized as a civil war, not a US vs. Iraq fight.

August 04-20-09 08:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max2147 (Post 1087437)
"Pacification efforts" are very different than outright war, or whatever we've been fighting in Iraq since 2003.
So what is the difference, in your opinion, between an outright war and a pacification effort? To me it's all just semantics.

Quote:
The Bush people were the ones who billed it as the end of the war. At the time, it was seen as a good move. It was supposed to be a triumphant capstone on a quick and easy war. The stigma of the speech and the sign didn't come until several months later.
Wrong, the stigma began immediately and not just the administration but everyone hoped it would be a quick and easy war, except of course our enemies like Iran, but also i'm sad to say Bush's political opposition who couldn't contain their glee at seeing the war effort run into problems.

Quote:
As far as the casualty rate, US casualties have been low for a war. However, Iraqi civilian/'good guy' casualties have been much higher, although getting any sort of a firm number is impossible.
Higher civilian casualties than what? WW2? Vietnam? the Norman invasion? Civilians die in large numbers in every war and counting them is at best not an exact science and at worst pure fabrication.

Max2147 04-21-09 12:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by August (Post 1087617)
So what is the difference, in your opinion, between an outright war and a pacification effort? To me it's all just semantics.
Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians don't die in pacification efforts.

Quote:
Wrong, the stigma began immediately and not just the administration but everyone hoped it would be a quick and easy war, except of course our enemies like Iran, but also i'm sad to say Bush's political opposition who couldn't contain their glee at seeing the war effort run into problems.
You can't just blame this all on Bush's enemies and say they wanted the war to fail. I'm no fan of Bush's, but my line throughout this is has been that I think the Iraq War was a terrible idea that will be a disaster for the United States, and I truly hope I'm 100% wrong. I think most people who think like me have the same outlook.
Quote:
Higher civilian casualties than what? WW2? Vietnam? the Norman invasion? Civilians die in large numbers in every war and counting them is at best not an exact science and at worst pure fabrication.
This entire topic was started by a post about how few casualties there have been in Iraq. But when you take civilian casualties into account, even the most conservative estimate give you much higher numbers than the original poster was talking about.

August 04-21-09 03:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max2147 (Post 1087687)
Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians don't die in pacification efforts.
Um, yes sometimes they do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacification

Quote:
You can't just blame this all on Bush's enemies and say they wanted the war to fail. I'm no fan of Bush's, but my line throughout this is has been that I think the Iraq War was a terrible idea that will be a disaster for the United States, and I truly hope I'm 100% wrong. I think most people who think like me have the same outlook.
I don't blame it all on Bush's enemies. The administration failed to plan for the worst possible scenario and although hindsight is 20-20 they should have known better.

Quote:
This entire topic was started by a post about how few casualties there have been in Iraq. But when you take civilian casualties into account, even the most conservative estimate give you much higher numbers than the original poster was talking about.
Well yes once you include civilian casualties the numbers would indeed go up but are they higher, either in actual numbers or percentages, than other wars of similar size?

I don't have the numbers in front of me but my gut tells me no. No other army that i've read about has ever operated under a more restrictive RoE or made more effort to minimize civilian casualties.

Max2147 04-21-09 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by August (Post 1088093)
Blimey, I hope you don't think that Bush was talking about THAT sort of pacification!

For what it's worth, I don't think Bush was lying on that carrier deck. I think he honestly thought it was all over bar the shouting. My gripe is that he and those around him should have known better (as you said). Hindsight is nice, but it didn't take a genius in 2003 to know that things were going to fall apart in a big way.

As far as casualties, I wasn't comparing it to previous wars. I was comparing it to public perception, specifically the perceptions that the original poster in this topic used.

Our troops have done an incredible job at keeping civilian casualties in their operations to a minimum, but unfortunately they're not the only ones over there. Most of the casualties came from Iraqis fighting Iraqis or foreign Islamists fighting Iraqis.

August 04-21-09 10:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max2147 (Post 1088313)
Blimey, I hope you don't think that Bush was talking about THAT sort of pacification!

For what it's worth, I don't think Bush was lying on that carrier deck. I think he honestly thought it was all over bar the shouting. My gripe is that he and those around him should have known better (as you said). Hindsight is nice, but it didn't take a genius in 2003 to know that things were going to fall apart in a big way.

As far as casualties, I wasn't comparing it to previous wars. I was comparing it to public perception, specifically the perceptions that the original poster in this topic used.

Our troops have done an incredible job at keeping civilian casualties in their operations to a minimum, but unfortunately they're not the only ones over there. Most of the casualties came from Iraqis fighting Iraqis or foreign Islamists fighting Iraqis.
Agreed.

Max2147 04-21-09 10:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by August (Post 1088363)
Agreed.
:up:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:51 AM.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.