View Full Version : Bush Challenge To Iraq attackers: ‘Bring them on’
Seraphim
07-03-2003, 04:28 AM
http://www.msnbc.com/news/933766.asp
The troops are dying every couple of days there and Bush tells them to bring it? They better find some WMD. Because if they dont and just say "well we liberated iraq"...theres gonna be alot of mad people out there.
ibstolidude
07-03-2003, 03:32 PM
nice...
Nice...
Nothing like an article like this to build confidence in your CINC.. ahhhh
ahh little sarcasm perhaps
oh sorry I do disagree with the better find WMD or else caluse though.
Seiyuuki
07-03-2003, 06:19 PM
There will always be critics...but hey, I'm an optimist, thing will work out for the better, but there will always be critics.
Its just another excuse for the democrats to criticize the president and act like they have a better solution.. what else is new
warchild1/27scout
07-03-2003, 10:26 PM
democrats will bash him no matter what. if he solved the middle east peace problem democrats would say he put palistinian funeral homes out of work. :lol:
Interesting that someone in the US, safe and sound, surrounded by umpteen guards can say, "Bring it on, keep attacking our troops, that is how we are going to beat you" some people still think this guy is a genius.
What he really should have done was say that policing Iraq is a job for police forces, not military units and asked the UN for an international police unit of large proportions to go in and do the dirty work. The US could still control the oil assets in Iraq and divide up the resources the way they are now, but at least the people of Iraq could have a bit of law and order. (Plus they could then claim it was an international effort to help Iraq and that they were really interested in helping the Iraqi people all along).
I realise most americans have an inbred hatred of Communism, which I can understand. Many westerners seem to think it is the worst thing in the world. What I don't understand is why they think lawlessness is better than dictatorship or communism? Even among the Russians who have suffered under communism and dictatorship rather more than Americans have or for that matter most other people on this Earth and you would think had more experience and therefore hatred for their method of government, there are still a significant number who look back with nostalgia at the law and order even a brutal dictator like Stalin managed to create.
Seiyuuki
07-04-2003, 02:25 AM
Don't be an idiot :bash:
UN forces are peace keeping force...two key words there "peace & keeping." You can't go into a place like Iraq and expect to keep the peace if there is no peace to be kept. Frankly, the UN track record for situation such as these is not exactly encouraging. Also, even if the world community get involve, the situation won't be resolve any quicker, look at Afghanistan, you got Germans, Canadians, Americans, British and a whole lot more and yet we still have pocket of resistence...the situation in Iraq will take time, a lot of time, years for sure, but it will get better.
Don't forget, granted that Badghad is the political center of the country and a lot of media focus is on that city and it's a big city, so regaining control is not an easy task. There are smaller cities out there in Iraq that are making tremendous progress toward stability, I recalled several already holding local election for government and rebuilding its infrastructure. One step at a time.
James
07-04-2003, 02:28 AM
Stalin had millions of his own people killed. I would go for lawlessness, if that was the alternative. At least that offers a semblance of freedom.
warchild1/27scout
07-04-2003, 08:33 AM
maybe he should have said,"show me what you got towell heads'.that would really fire them up.lol
Trident-za
07-04-2003, 08:48 AM
Personally I would be pissed if I was one of the soldiers in Iraq - the only time I'd accept a politician saying stuff like that is if he/she was right next to me handing out the ammo..... its easy to be brave from a few thousand miles away.
warchild1/27scout
07-04-2003, 09:08 AM
its like roosevelt saying carry the big stick. you think he was the big stick he was refirring. no it was the military. should they have been agry
Seiyuuki
07-04-2003, 10:02 AM
Then again...Teddy also said "speak softly..." does that qualify as speaking softly?
woot You're right though, we do have the big stick these now a day.
Perhaps it wasnt the best idea to say it, but it is really not that big of a deal. If it had been Al friggen Gore who said it, the Democrats would be defending him like he was the last liberal on earth. I'd say that that sort of rhetoric and talk is good for pre-war speeches rather than during a time when we are being attacked every single day.
The UN is most effective at humanitarian type support, I seriously doubt they can provide better security than we can. Furthermore, to imply that we want lawlessness there is obsurred. Conjuring up a government in the wake of a tyrant who ruled for three decades and in the middle of a warzone is not exactly the easiest thing to do, it will come in time.
warchild1/27scout
07-04-2003, 09:24 PM
the only thing the un would be good for was filling our tanks up with gas and maybe picking the trash up in the bad part of baghdad :lol:
Argyll
07-05-2003, 03:51 AM
Warchild,I wouldn't even let them fill up the tanks!!!!
"If it had been Al friggen Gore who said it, the Democrats would be defending him like he was the last liberal on earth."
I think perhaps party politics has more to do with attitudes here on the part of American posters than they care to admit.
I really don't know very much about Al Gore, and it really doesn't matter to me what party or set of values Bush represents when he does the things he does or says the things he says. I don't care if it was Clinton, or Bush Snr or Reagan... who says these things... whoever says them is a moron. And no, that does not mean I am anti american, if Putin, or Blair, or Bellesconi say it I will think they are idoits too.
"UN forces are peace keeping force...two key words there "peace & keeping." You can't go into a place like Iraq and expect to keep the peace if there is no peace to be kept."
The UN POLICE FORCE I would suggest would be made up of countries sympathetic to Iraqis... something the US armed forces cannot qualify for.
The UN forces in Korea were not a peace keeping force either and you might like to discredit their efforts as well, but there were two superpowers then and several powerful neighbouring countries that had an interest that could not guarantee victory for their own side (no-one is that powerful), but could deny it to the other side long enough to create a stalemate.
I would suggest that the large majority of "resistance" is because of the conduct of searches and the lack of law and order, not some blind devotion to Saddam.
"Also, even if the world community get involve, the situation won't be resolve any quicker, look at Afghanistan, you got Germans, Canadians, Americans, British and a whole lot more and yet we still have pocket of resistence"
There will always be resistance in Afghanistan.... Hmmm Germans, Canadians, Americans and British forces... how well do you think they will relate to the local population? The real question is are they there to help the Afghans or to hunt down the reminants of Alquada? The same question in Iraq. Are the American and British forces there to help the Iraqi people or to ensure the safety of the oil and hunt down Saddam and WMDs?
If there were Indian, Malaysian, Saudi Arabian, Indonesian and Jordanian Police units there could that change things? You could still have the vetted Iraqi police trained by american cops to american standards to replace them, and that would free up US and British troops from the tasks police should be doing. Soldiers suck at being police and vice versa.
"Stalin had millions of his own people killed. I would go for lawlessness, if that was the alternative."
Really?
Stalin in charge of the US internally deports 5 million Californians to Arizona and half of them disappear on the way. You don't happen to know any of the 5 million that were moved let alone those that died. You'd still prefer not being able to step foot outside your door because the local mafia wants your house and will kill you and your family if you gave them half a chance. No power, no water, no rubbish collection on Thursday nights, no police, no fire department.
I've been to third world countries... I wouldn't want to be stuck in one.
"At least that offers a semblance of freedom."
Without law and order or any semblance of it... you have the right to remain silent. Be it via a rifle or as in Rwanda a machette.
"maybe he should have said,"show me what you got towell heads'.that would really fire them up.lol"
It shows his understanding of the military is as weak as Clintons. What sort of guerilla war is the US army prepared for? Would high tech weapons have made much difference in Vietnam? Are they making that much difference in Afghanistan? (even the soviets and British can hold cities... they never had Afghanistan either).
Hearts and minds, not Hinds and Mines.
"the only thing the un would be good for was filling our tanks up with gas and maybe picking the trash up in the bad part of baghdad"
Yes, because UN forces are made up of crap units from crap countries?
If you want to ignore law and order then the body bags with British and US troops will flow.
usa320
07-07-2003, 12:44 PM
"They better find some WMD. Because if they dont and just say "well we liberated iraq"
Wait, so saving millions from lives full of oppression isnt nearly as important as finding barrels of gas?
:roll:
Im confident we will eventually find WMD's, weve already found the centrifuge parts and the mobile labs...apparently that aint enough. ]
EVEN IF WE DONT find WMD i still feel that the humanitarian aspect of Operation Enduring Freedom is just as, if not more, important.
Seiyuuki
07-07-2003, 02:30 PM
The UN POLICE FORCE I would suggest would be made up of countries sympathetic to Iraqis... something the US armed forces cannot qualify for.
How are we unsympathetic??? Unqualify for policing the country, yes...but unsympathetic...I don't think so.
The UN forces in Korea were not a peace keeping force either and you might like to discredit their efforts as well, but there were two superpowers then and several powerful neighbouring countries that had an interest that could not guarantee victory for their own side (no-one is that powerful), but could deny it to the other side long enough to create a stalemate.
DON'T EVER MAKE A DAMN ASSUMPTION ON WHAT I WOULD OR WOULD NOT DISCREDIT!!! Yes, me, as a U.S. citizen, would love to discredit all the life of U.S. and international soldiers that sacrifice their life there. :bash: :bash: :bash: :fork: :fork: :fork:
...You could still have the vetted Iraqi police trained by american cops to american standards to replace them, and that would free up US and British troops from the tasks police should be doing. Soldiers suck at being police and vice versa.
Uhh...isn't that what we're doing right now??? I don't think it help our effort to have these dissidents blowing up police station and killing new Iraqis' police officers.
Really?
Stalin in charge of the US internally deports 5 million Californians to Arizona and half of them disappear on the way. You don't happen to know any of the 5 million that were moved let alone those that died. You'd still prefer not being able to step foot outside your door because the local mafia wants your house and will kill you and your family if you gave them half a chance. No power, no water, no rubbish collection on Thursday nights, no police, no fire department.
I've been to third world countries... I wouldn't want to be stuck in one.
I prefer the alternative, I'll just shoot myself!!! I was borned and raised in third world country.
"maybe he should have said,"show me what you got towell heads'.that would really fire them up.lol"
It shows his understanding of the military is as weak as Clintons. What sort of guerilla war is the US army prepared for? Would high tech weapons have made much difference in Vietnam? Are they making that much difference in Afghanistan? (even the soviets and British can hold cities... they never had Afghanistan either).
Sense of humor??? :cantbeli:
Yes, because UN forces are made up of crap units from crap countries? If you want to ignore law and order then the body bags with British and US troops will flow.
If we follow the UN's law and order, body bags with Iraqi civilians will flow.
Do and you're Damn, Damn if you Don't.
I'll bet that ALL 1.4 million of our military men and women will say that Bush has a MUCH better understanding of the military than Clinton. Just because of one comment like that, you are going to assume he doesnt know anything about the military and automatically gets put to the level of a draft dodger. Republicans dont micro manage the military like the democrats do, they let the experts handle the job and thats the best way.
Vietnam would have been won if the military did not have a leash on its neck and it had not been so political. Look at all the battles of Vietnam and how many casualties we took, then look at the enemies and tell me if you really think that if we had been allowed to fight to our potential that the outcome would have been the same.
Seiyuuki
07-07-2003, 03:31 PM
Yeah...I can't recalled the exact name of the battle, but in Vietnam U.S. forces fought for the hill, then abandon it, then came back and fought for it again, then abandon it again, then came back and fought for it again, then I think they abandon it again...!!!
Seraphim
07-07-2003, 10:16 PM
"They better find some WMD. Because if they dont and just say "well we liberated iraq"
Wait, so saving millions from lives full of oppression isnt nearly as important as finding barrels of gas?
:roll:
Im confident we will eventually find WMD's, weve already found the centrifuge parts and the mobile labs...apparently that aint enough. ]
EVEN IF WE DONT find WMD i still feel that the humanitarian aspect of Operation Enduring Freedom is just as, if not more, important.
The whole reason of invading Iraq was cause of WMD's...if the US wanted to free the opressed, then they better start invading half the damn world.
General Franks has also been quoted as repeatedly saying "Bring it on" in support of Bush when asked about his comments. I suppose that because he said it too, naturally his understanding of the military is as weak as Clintons as well despite his 30+ years of service.
A bit of a random unrelated question but it's not worth starting a new thread for it...
Does anyone else think that Bush serving in the national guard rather than the regular army was a kop out to keep from being sent to Vietnam?
And if you agree, do you think he should have gone or do you think he has the right to skip it because he was the sun of a rich, powerful man..
(not joining the armed forces isn't an option for future politician of this type, right?)
Seiyuuki
07-07-2003, 11:14 PM
A bit of a random unrelated question but it's not worth starting a new thread for it...
Does anyone else think that Bush serving in the national guard rather than the regular army was a kop out to keep from being sent to Vietnam?
And if you agree, do you think he should have gone or do you think he has the right to skip it because he was the sun of a rich, powerful man..
(not joining the armed forces isn't an option for future politician of this type, right?)
I do know that his National Guard unit was the next on the list to be sent over to Vietnam, but the war was over for the U.S. before they were officially given the order to deploy (got it from the History Channel, I think).
Yes, I do think his being in the National Guard was to avoid being in Vietnam. Is it right or wrong, I don't know and I don't want to belittle the National Guard. With U.S. involvement today, if someone wanted to enlist in the Guard instead of the regular army (and I know recruits have a choice between the two), I would not think of him/her as avoiding the war.
Is not an option, but I prefer a politician, whose has the responsibility of declaring war or sending troops, etc., etc., etc. to have some qualify experience in the military, i.e. John McCain.
He was a pilot though right? They are usually pretty safe. Prince Andrew (you can't get a more priveliged family than his) was a a navy helo pilot in the Falklands war and that is more dangerous. hmm..
Seiyuuki
07-07-2003, 11:33 PM
Yup...National Guard F-106's pilot.
"DON'T EVER MAKE A DAMN ASSUMPTION ON WHAT I WOULD OR WOULD NOT DISCREDIT!!! Yes, me, as a U.S. citizen, would love to discredit all the life of U.S. and international soldiers that sacrifice their life there. "
So what does this mean:
Frankly, the UN track record for situation such as these is not exactly encouraging.
Aren't good enough to handle the situation?
Bush has already declared the war is over. All that is left is a bit of anarchy because there is not police force. You are saying the solution is time and I am saying the solution is a police force.
"Uhh...isn't that what we're doing right now??? I don't think it help our effort to have these dissidents blowing up police station and killing new Iraqis' police officers. "
No, it isn't. What you have is soldiers pretending to be police, which is not the same as having real police... much like using Soldiers to be firemen like they did in Britain for a while. Not a good idea.
"Sense of humor???"
A misdirected sense of humour. Some of those attacking US and UK troops might have pictures of Saddam in their pockets, but I'd suggest most are just pi$$ed off at the lack of democracy they were promised and the anarchy they are having to put up with while the Ex US military government sorts it $hit out.
"If we follow the UN's law and order, body bags with Iraqi civilians will flow.
Do and you're Damn, Damn if you Don't."
Why do you think proper law and order from a largely impartial police force would lead to civilians being killed?
Is america so wonderful that its soldiers are better trained at being policemen than real policemen from other countries?
You sounded offended when I suggested you were saying the UN was imcompetant, but now they are just untrained morons that shoot first and ask questions later?
SABER 2-3
07-08-2003, 02:02 AM
For a Police force to be effective for any length of time it must be totally partial. Police forces must be made up primarily from the local population that they serve, this is the only way to ensure that the Policing force puts the peoples best intrests first. It is also the only way to curb hate and distrust because regardless of how sympathtic these enforcement personel may be to the Iraqis and no matter what type of uniform you put them in they will always be a unwanted army occupying a country that is not theirs to regulate.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.