Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Happy Birthday Mission Accomplished!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BrownShark" data-source="post: 335336" data-attributes="member: 12148"><p>SAT,</p><p> </p><p>The rhetoric you posted is exactly the standard "message" speech given by White House spokesholes everyday and every year of this conflict.</p><p> </p><p>Lets take a quick analyst of what you </p><p>repeated":</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>This is the new explanation of the aircraft carrier speech, however, the same speech was given a month later to troops at a military base in Iraq by Preisident Bush where he uses the term "mission Accomplished".</p><p> </p><p>The term "mission accomplished" was originally in the speech and was suppose to be delivered to the american public on that day. The term was REMOVED shortly before the speech on the recommendation of Commanders on the ground and it was Donald Rumsfeld who removed it from the speech. The banner, which was made and paid for by the PR office of the White House was sent to the carrier in conjunction with the speech. The banner was overlooked and not taken down by the Navy.</p><p> </p><p><strong>source:</strong></p><p>However the speech also said that:</p><p>"<em>In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.</em>"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished#cite_note-main551946.shtml-6" target="_blank"><u><span style="color: #800080">[7]</span></u></a> When he received an advance copy of the speech, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Defense_Secretary" target="_blank"><u><span style="color: #0000ff">U.S. Defense Secretary</span></u></a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld" target="_blank"><u><span style="color: #0000ff">Donald Rumsfeld</span></u></a> took care to remove any use of the phrase "Mission Accomplished" in the speech itself. Later, when journalist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward" target="_blank"><u><span style="color: #0000ff">Bob Woodward</span></u></a> asked him about his changes to the speech, Rumsfeld responded:"<em>I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it's too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back… they fixed the speech, but not the sign.</em>"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished#cite_note-7" target="_blank"><u><span style="color: #800080">[8]</span></u></a></p><p>Bush reiterated a "Mission Accomplished" message to the troops at Camp As Sayliyah on June 5, 2003 — about a month after the aircraft carrier incident: "America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished#cite_note-8" target="_blank"><u><span style="color: #800080">[9]</span></u></a></p><p> </p><p>Next you said:</p><p></p><p> </p><p>Yes, we did go to war in WWII to fight an evil empire. In the end, we did win, but we did not win alone. The coalition of Russian, English, Canadian and Americans won the war collectively.</p><p> </p><p>We could not have won alone. This little factoid you leave out. The USA could not have been successful without the totality of forces fighting the germans on all sides.</p><p> </p><p>I get your little twist of facts, but they dont make your point.</p><p> </p><p>Next you said:</p><p></p><p> </p><p>You had me on the floor with this one..... This is exactly the reason rhetoric works. This is called an implied sentence. It makes the listener draw a connection to facts that are not connected.</p><p> </p><p>From what you said, and keeping in mind we are talking about IRAQ, you expect anyone to believe that if we leave IRAQ, IRAQIS will make the trip to the USA to attack us? How? in their extensive air force? In their massive navy? Will they swim across the atlantic to breach our shores? </p><p> </p><p>What possesses you to believe that IRAQI's will come to the United States of America to continue the fight?</p><p> </p><p>Now, I know you will change your meaning to Al Qaeda, but remember, Gen Patreaus himself said there are less than 2000 Al Qaeda fighters in iraq. Hardly a fighting force.</p><p> </p><p>Rhetoric and its intentions are to keep you in fear, clearly you are.</p><p> </p><p>Next you said:</p><p></p><p> </p><p>WOW, Rush got you on this one. He said this but 3 days ago.</p><p> </p><p>A world war? This is where youre wrong. We are in a "concieved" pre-emptive world war. There is another term for this in history. Its called IMPERIALISM.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Imperialism</strong> has two meanings, one describing an action and the other describing an attitude. Most commonly it is understood in relation to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire" target="_blank"><u><span style="color: #0000ff">Empire</span></u></a> building, as the forceful extension of a nation's authority by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territory_%28country_subdivision%29" target="_blank"><u><span style="color: #0000ff">territorial</span></u></a> conquest establishing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic" target="_blank"><u><span style="color: #0000ff">economic</span></u></a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political" target="_blank"><u><span style="color: #0000ff">political</span></u></a> domination of other nations. In its second meaning the term describes the imperialistic attitude of superiority, subordination and dominion over foreign peoples.</p><p> </p><p>Keep reading Sat, Ill give you an education for free.</p><p> </p><p>Peace<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/peaceful.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":peaceful:" title="Peaceful :peaceful:" data-shortname=":peaceful:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BrownShark, post: 335336, member: 12148"] SAT, The rhetoric you posted is exactly the standard "message" speech given by White House spokesholes everyday and every year of this conflict. Lets take a quick analyst of what you repeated": This is the new explanation of the aircraft carrier speech, however, the same speech was given a month later to troops at a military base in Iraq by Preisident Bush where he uses the term "mission Accomplished". The term "mission accomplished" was originally in the speech and was suppose to be delivered to the american public on that day. The term was REMOVED shortly before the speech on the recommendation of Commanders on the ground and it was Donald Rumsfeld who removed it from the speech. The banner, which was made and paid for by the PR office of the White House was sent to the carrier in conjunction with the speech. The banner was overlooked and not taken down by the Navy. [B]source:[/B] However the speech also said that: "[I]In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.[/I]"[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished#cite_note-main551946.shtml-6"][U][COLOR=#800080][7][/COLOR][/U][/URL] When he received an advance copy of the speech, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Defense_Secretary"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]U.S. Defense Secretary[/COLOR][/U][/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Donald Rumsfeld[/COLOR][/U][/URL] took care to remove any use of the phrase "Mission Accomplished" in the speech itself. Later, when journalist [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Bob Woodward[/COLOR][/U][/URL] asked him about his changes to the speech, Rumsfeld responded:"[I]I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it's too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back… they fixed the speech, but not the sign.[/I]"[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished#cite_note-7"][U][COLOR=#800080][8][/COLOR][/U][/URL] Bush reiterated a "Mission Accomplished" message to the troops at Camp As Sayliyah on June 5, 2003 — about a month after the aircraft carrier incident: "America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished."[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished#cite_note-8"][U][COLOR=#800080][9][/COLOR][/U][/URL] Next you said: Yes, we did go to war in WWII to fight an evil empire. In the end, we did win, but we did not win alone. The coalition of Russian, English, Canadian and Americans won the war collectively. We could not have won alone. This little factoid you leave out. The USA could not have been successful without the totality of forces fighting the germans on all sides. I get your little twist of facts, but they dont make your point. Next you said: You had me on the floor with this one..... This is exactly the reason rhetoric works. This is called an implied sentence. It makes the listener draw a connection to facts that are not connected. From what you said, and keeping in mind we are talking about IRAQ, you expect anyone to believe that if we leave IRAQ, IRAQIS will make the trip to the USA to attack us? How? in their extensive air force? In their massive navy? Will they swim across the atlantic to breach our shores? What possesses you to believe that IRAQI's will come to the United States of America to continue the fight? Now, I know you will change your meaning to Al Qaeda, but remember, Gen Patreaus himself said there are less than 2000 Al Qaeda fighters in iraq. Hardly a fighting force. Rhetoric and its intentions are to keep you in fear, clearly you are. Next you said: WOW, Rush got you on this one. He said this but 3 days ago. A world war? This is where youre wrong. We are in a "concieved" pre-emptive world war. There is another term for this in history. Its called IMPERIALISM. [B]Imperialism[/B] has two meanings, one describing an action and the other describing an attitude. Most commonly it is understood in relation to [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Empire[/COLOR][/U][/URL] building, as the forceful extension of a nation's authority by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territory_%28country_subdivision%29"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]territorial[/COLOR][/U][/URL] conquest establishing [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]economic[/COLOR][/U][/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]political[/COLOR][/U][/URL] domination of other nations. In its second meaning the term describes the imperialistic attitude of superiority, subordination and dominion over foreign peoples. Keep reading Sat, Ill give you an education for free. Peace:peaceful: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Happy Birthday Mission Accomplished!!
Top