0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 10:09 am
Deep Throat:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1371088#1371088
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 10:27 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
.. "Major combat operations is now over" was the most stupid statement made by any president.


I highly doubt that's the case.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 10:41 am
Ticomaya wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
.. "Major combat operations is now over" was the most stupid statement made by any president.


I highly doubt that's the case.


I believe "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski." was far stupider. Oh, and "Read my lips... NO NEW TAXES!" was pretty stupid as well. Oh, wait, that whole "fool me once..." thing was also stupider.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 10:46 am
Quote, "I believe "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski." was far stupider. Oh, and "Read my lips... NO NEW TAXES!" was pretty stupid as well. Oh, wait, that whole "fool me once..." thing was also stupider."

Clinton's statement didn't harm anybody. Bush's statement ended up costing this country lives and billions. If you can't reconcile this in your brain to understand which is more stupid, you're a lost cause.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 10:48 am
"Bring it on."

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 10:52 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Quote, "I believe "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski." was far stupider. Oh, and "Read my lips... NO NEW TAXES!" was pretty stupid as well. Oh, wait, that whole "fool me once..." thing was also stupider."

Clinton's statement didn't harm anybody. Bush's statement ended up costing this country lives and billions. If you can't reconcile this in your brain to understand which is more stupid, you're a lost cause.


Bush's statement "Major combat operations is now over" did not end up costing anyone their lives. That's a ridiculous overstatement on your part CI.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 10:54 am
Tell that to the military men and women who thought they knew what Bush was saying.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 10:56 am
How about "Bring it on."

Think that little dare to our enemies has cost lives, McG?

Should Bush condemn and retract his own statement?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 10:56 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Quote, "I believe "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski." was far stupider. Oh, and "Read my lips... NO NEW TAXES!" was pretty stupid as well. Oh, wait, that whole "fool me once..." thing was also stupider."

Clinton's statement didn't harm anybody. Bush's statement ended up costing this country lives and billions. If you can't reconcile this in your brain to understand which is more stupid, you're a lost cause.


I knew this would be your reaction. Clinton's statement didn't "harm" anybody? Not in the sense that anybody got their head cut off, but it did send the message to millions that it must be okay to lie, after all, the President does. No harm?

Please explain how Bush's statement cost one life. We can argue about the meaning of "major combat operations" if you'd like, but even if you are correct (which I doubt) that "major combat operations" were not over, please explain how the fact of his making that statement cost any lives, because I am having difficulty making that connection. I'm sure you can explain it to me and my caffeine-addled brain.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 10:59 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
How about "Bring it on."

Think that little dare to our enemies has cost lives, McG?

Should Bush condemn and retract his own statement?

Cycloptichorn


How about "Let's roll"? What about, "And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon"?

You actually think the terrorists needed a dare to attack the US? Please explain how this has translated itself into one life lost.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 11:01 am
Yeah, yeah, Tico, daring the enemies to attack us won't cause any loss of life at all, but a Newsweek article sure did according to you and yours, remember? Right.

Quote:
Monday, May 30, 2005
War News for Monday, May 30, 2005

Bring 'em on: British soldier killed by IED and four injured in al-Amarah.

Bring 'em on: Twenty five sacked ex commandos queuing for back pay killed and one hundred injured in twin suicide bomb attack in Hilla.

Bring 'em on: Iraqi police general critically injured after attempted assassination in Kirkuk.

Bring 'em on: Leader of largest Sunni political party, considered a moderate, arrested along with his three sons and four guards in Baghdad.

Bring 'em on: Two Iraqi police sergeants working for the Iraqi Cabinet gunned down in Baghdad.

Bring 'em on: Fifty insurgents launched a sustained attack on Sunday on the detention center run by the Interior Ministry's major crimes unit in Amariya, according to an unconfirmed account by an Amariya resident who was reached by telephone, insurgent bands roaming the district after the battle claimed to have captured weapons from the detention center's armory.

Bring 'em on: Five suicide bombs in six hours kill twenty members of Iraqi security forces in Baghdad.

Bring 'em on: Oil infrastructure attacked on the outskirts of Baghdad.

Bring 'em on: South Korean base comes under fire in Irbil.

War Crimes: It emerged yesterday that up to 11 members of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment could be charged under war crimes legislation enacted in 2001 after the establishment of the international criminal court. The soldiers would face trial in the UK under the ICC act.

Averting Civil War: Iraq's religious leaders are intensifying efforts to heal the rifts between the country's Sunnis and Shias amid a spate of sectarian killings that has raised fears of civil war. A weekend meeting between senior figures from the Sunni Association of Muslim Clerics and the Shia Badr Brigades - the militia of the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the biggest Shia party - sought to ease tensions caused by the killing of at least 14 Sunni clerics in the past month.

Doctors Leaving: In the past year, about 10 percent of Baghdad's total force of 32,000 registered doctors, both Sunnis and Shiites, have been driven from their jobs, according to the Iraqi Medical Association, which licenses practitioners. The exodus has accelerated in recent months, said Akif Khalil al-Alousi, a pathologist at Kindi Teaching Hospital and a senior member of the association. The vast majority of those fleeing, he said, are the most senior doctors.

The Interior Ministry has already responded to the threats: It simplified gun license procedures for doctors. They can get licensed weapons faster than other Iraqis.

Dr. Omar al-Kubaisy, one of the doctors who stopped going to work at the cardiac hospital after he was threatened, kept going to work at his own clinic, watched over by his 23-year-old son Ali, who stood guard with a large and always visible semi-automatic gun. But last week, Kubaisy, one of Iraq's top cardiologists, left for France.

Emergencies are nonstop. Civilian deaths have jumped five-fold since the new government took power late last month. One physician estimated that about 250 Iraqi doctors had been kidnapped over the past two years. The simple quest for money which fuels the country's serious, widespread kidnapping industry appears to be the biggest motivation.


dailywarnews.blogspot.com

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 11:02 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
How about "Bring it on."

Think that little dare to our enemies has cost lives, McG?

Should Bush condemn and retract his own statement?

Cycloptichorn


I believe Bush could have said "hay-nanny-nanny, fickle-fackle-foo!" and just as many people would have died as a result.

You and C.I. seem to have this idea that what Bush says during press ops actually has something to do with combat and how many people die as a result.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 11:04 am
See above.

Daring our enemies to attack can hardly have life-saving consequences, don't you think?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 01:05 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
See above.


Do you honestly think your link provides evidence connecting the deaths listed to Bush's "Bring 'em on" comment? McG's point in his above post is certainly valid.

Cyclops wrote:
Daring our enemies to attack can hardly have life-saving consequences, don't you think?

Cycloptichorn


You can debate one side of that argument, and I could debate the other. Neither of us would probably have any facts supporting our positions, other than your firm conviction that the "Bring it on" comment must have caused deaths. I could summon up the conviction to say -- just as forcefully -- that Bush's comment gave some terrorists pause, and made them think the US might not be the ninny pushovers they might have thought, and so they didn't attack the US. I don't really believe that, but I put as much credence into your view as I do for the converse. See McG's post above.

Bush's comment, while certainly not diplomatic, most certainly did not convey weakness, which is the message the terrorists are used to getting from the US. Would you have preferred something along the lines of, "Please don't attack us again"?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 01:07 pm
Along with cylop's logical point, it also just points to what kind of character Bush has to be so casual about death and dying.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 01:10 pm
No, I don't think the dailywarnews link is proof that Bush's comment killed people directly. I just like to link to it form

But you would be hard pressed to argue the stance that Bush's 'Bring it on' comment could possibly do anything other than endanger American lives. It certainly didn't help matters. It was undiplomatic at best and idiotic at worst. There is no positive to this statement at all.

I'm not sure who you think actually believed before Bush made that statement that the US were 'ninny pushovers.' Noone believes this. But now our enemies ARE 'bringing it on,' and people are dying, exactly like Bush requested. Think he's happy?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 01:17 pm
Um ... see my post above.

You really believe that enemies that were not previously inclined to attack the US heard Bush speak, and thought, "You know what, that sounds like a dare and it pisses me off ... I'm going to go now and attack American interests!"?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 01:20 pm
Well, I don't think it calmed anyone down, do you, Tico?

And it certainly could have been used that way. Potential terror recruits can be played an easily-available clip of our commander taunting them. It does nothing for our image and was a foolish statement.

I'm not stating that this statement is responsible for deaths directly (though it could be); the Bushco. policies are far better at that if you are looking for blame.

You Hawks constantly misunderstand the point of this war and how/if we are going to win. Hearts and minds...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 01:27 pm
Quote:
"Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice," Bush said. "There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on."


Of course Bush's opponents only heard "bring 'em on" and ignored the rest of his comment.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 01:34 pm
McG, even with the full paragraph, it still reads the same. Bush is telling any would be terrorist to come to Iraq and fight our military there where there are innocent Iraqi civilians.

I am not saying it wouldn't have happened had he never said those words, it just shows how casual he is about the possibility of our troops dying or Iraqi's dying.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/06/2024 at 10:22:37