posted on July 2, 2003 10:52:55 AM new
Yeah - This makes me sick. He sits safe behind a desk and talks tough. He never will risk his precious little butt.
posted on July 2, 2003 03:54:32 PM new We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."
In other words, losing a few of our troops every day or two is acceptable...this is especially sickening coming from an AWOL reservist.
___________________________________
What luck for the leaders that men do not think. - Adolph Hitler
posted on July 2, 2003 04:38:32 PM new
"There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there," Bush told reporters at the White House. "My answer is bring them on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."
Bush's belligerent comments came amid growing calls from Congress for him to tell the American people that the U.S. mission in Iraq will require a bigger, longer commitment than his administration has acknowledged. Lawmakers are also increasingly concerned about the mounting death toll two months after Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq.
What a reckless and callous comment! I watched the clip and it appeared that this comment was planned.
posted on July 3, 2003 06:04:25 AM new
Bush and his rich buddies standing safely behind all their security security, their families and children safe and secure, awaiting their inheritance of all the riches the Bush Regime is aquiring, suddenly spout off "I DARE YOU TO KILL OTHER AMERICANS CHILDREN!"
What a gutless ba$tard! What a freaking pussy! If you challenge someone, make sure it is YOU in the crosshairs.
Are Americans in Iraq merely to die for Bush's amusement?
posted on July 3, 2003 09:24:24 AM new
I came upon a website with the news headlines. I saw the one with Bush and "Bring them on." I thought, that's gotta be a "joke" but it wasn't. I could not believe it!
I've gotta tell ya, I was turned off by that.
Yeah, I do support him, but more importantly, I support the troops, the ones that have their butts on the line, and their loved ones for many reasons.
Anyways, I do think that went too far. He is "calling them out" with that phrase, imo.
"Bring them on" WAS imo, disrespectful to the troops and their loved ones.
posted on July 3, 2003 11:06:47 AM new
Mr President, How Dare You?
by Michael Shannon July 3, 2003
Even for a man who has made some of the stupidest, most ill-advised, poorly thought out and badly constructed off the cuff comments ever uttered by a high ranking government official, this was way over the line. For George Bush to declare that "we have sufficient forces" in place to handle any armed threat from Iraqi insurrectionists so "bring them on" is so lacking in common sense, so devoid of compassion for those affected by the statement, so willful a display of ignorance of how such a comment will be interpreted by both foe and friend alike that it can be considered nothing but indisputable evidence that he is by temperament and intellect grotesquely unsuited for the office of the President of the United States.
For a man who has never heard a shot fired in anger to stand in a public forum and deliberately goad others to take violent action against the men and women he is directly responsible for is an abomination. How dare he be so callous? How dare he be so hypocritical? How dare he be so stupid?
Laughing at his mangled syntax, absurd malapropisms and ever-growing litany of linguistic creations of Frankensteinian roportions is one thing. When offered on topics of a purely political nature such remarks are merely the window to a very underdeveloped intellect. But when he is speaking in an official capacity as commander in chief of the American Armed Forces, and as such every word he says directly impacts the very lives of thousands of people, such incompetence cannot be permitted or tolerated.
Mr Bush should first and foremost be ashamed of himself. He should retract the statement at the first available opportunity. He should apologize to every man and woman of the Armed Forces of the United States who at this very hour are directly in harm's way. He should get down on his knees and beg the forgiveness in advance of every mother, every father, every boy friend, every girlfriend, every husband, every wife, every brother, every sister and every friend of every man and woman who will die because of his vacuous, vainglorious idiocy.
Copyright 2001-2003 AmericaHeldHostile.com. All rights reserved.
posted on July 3, 2003 12:38:48 PM newThe Fortunate Son -
Some folks are born made to wave the flag
Yeah, the red, white, and blue
When the band plays 'Hail To The Chief'
Yeah, they'll point the cannon at you
It ain't me, It ain't me
It ain't me, It ain't me
I'm no millionaire's son
It ain't me, It ain't me
It ain't me
I'm no fortunate one
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand
Well, they help themselves, yeah
When the taxman comes to the door
House looks a like a rummage sale
It ain't me, ain't me
It ain't me
I'm no millionaire's son
It ain't me, It ain't me
It ain't me
Ain't no fortunate one, no
Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
Yeah, when they send you down to war
Well, when you ask them how much you should give
Yeah, it's always more, more, more
It ain't me, It ain't me
It ain't me
I ain't no senator's son
It ain't me, It ain't me
It ain't me
I'm no fortunate one
It ain't me, It ain't me
It ain't me
I ain't no military son
It ain't me, It ain't me
It ain't me
Ain't no fortunate son
posted on July 3, 2003 12:55:34 PM new
"Bring them on" is a great statement. First, it shows Bush has total confidence in the troops. Second, it taunts the Iraqi resistance/Al Qaida into responding and to hopefully fight it out sooner rather than later. Speaking from experience, "Bring them on" is exactly what most of our grunts would like to tell the enemy.
posted on July 3, 2003 01:03:55 PM new
And you know this because...........?
Are you speaking for the soldiers?
Are you speaking for Al-Qaida?
It is just Bush taunting the "enemy" to attacks OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN. He would have said it quite differently if HE were in the crosshairs. It would have come out like "Please don't hurt me!" But he is gutless and a coward and willing to sacrifice everyone else.
And to say that soldier would like to say "Bring it On", well, let me tell you something. They are ALOT brighter than that these days! Maybe you would, but most today wouldn't.
[ edited by mlecher on Jul 3, 2003 01:05 PM ]
posted on July 3, 2003 01:27:24 PM new
ebayauctionguy
"...is exactly what most of our grunts would like to tell the enemy."
Well speaking from experience, I disagree with you. This is a new kind of war. Even though Vietnam War also didn't have any "frontlines" the war was over there, not here (between the USA and Charlie, that is). This war is not only possible here in the USA, but in other countries which could kill many civilians. And it has happened. Bali, New York.
The grunt's battle cry is done on the battlefield not in the civilian world. Bush's comment was done in a civilian sector, imo endangering women, children, and many others.
We can very easily have suicide bombings here in the USA in daycares, restaurants, carnivals, graduation ceremonies etc.
Don't ever tell the enemy to "Bring it on" in the civilian sector, Commander-in-Chief, Sir!
Our combat troops are proud and tough and most want to fight the enemies of the US. Believe me, there are MANY troops in units that did not deploy to Iraq who are disappointed that they did not get the chance to fight in Iraq. During the fighting, the 4th Infantry Division was held up on ships because they couldn't go through Turkey and they were seriously pissed that the war was over before they got there.
Bush IS in the crosshairs of every terrorist in the world. A small nuke in the vicinity of the White House and Bush is toast. But I don't sense any fear in Bush. Bush is endangering only other people's children? What about his daughters? Because of Bush's war on terror, his own daughters are terrorist targets and I'm sure that they are in danger 24 hours a day.
posted on July 3, 2003 01:36:09 PM new
ebayauctionguy,
Yeah, right....
Now listen up!
A Former Special Forces Soldier Responds to Bush's Invitation for Iraqis to Attack US Troops
"Bring 'Em On?"
By STAN GOFF
In 1970, when I arrived at my unit, Company A, 4th Battalion/503rd Infantry, 173rd Airborne Brigade, in what was then the Republic of Vietnam, I was charged up for a fight. I believed that if we didn't stop the communists in Vietnam, we'd eventually be fighting this global conspiracy in the streets of Hot Springs, Arkansas. I'd been toughened by Basic Training, Infantry Training and Parachute Training, taught how to use my weapons and equipment, and I was confident in my ability to vanquish the skinny unter-menschen. So I was dismayed when one of my new colleagues--a veteran who'd been there ten months--told me, "We are losing this war."
Not only that, he said, if I wanted to survive for my one year there, I had to understand one very basic thing. All Vietnamese were the enemy, and for us, the grunts on the ground, this was a race war. Within one month, it was apparent that everything he told me was true, and that every reason that was being given to the American public for the war was not true.
We had a battalion commander whom I never saw. He would fly over in a Loach helicopter and give cavalier instructions to do things like "take your unit 13 kilometers to the north." In the Central Highlands, 13 kilometers is something we had to hack out with machetes, in 98-degree heat, carrying sometimes 90 pounds over our body weights, over steep, slippery terrain. The battalion commander never picked up a machete as far as we knew, and after these directives he'd fly back to an air-conditioned headquarters in LZ English near Bong-son. We often fantasized together about shooting his helicopter down as a way of relieving our deep resentment against this faceless, starched and spit-shined despot.
Yesterday, when I read that US Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush, in a moment of blustering arm-chair machismo, sent a message to the 'non-existent' Iraqi guerrillas to "bring 'em on," the first image in my mind was a 20-year-old soldier in an ever-more-fragile marriage, who'd been away from home for 8 months. He participated in the initial invasion, and was told he'd be home for the 4th of July. He has a newfound familiarity with corpses, and everything he thought he knew last year is now under revision. He is sent out into the streets of Fallujah (or some other city), where he has already been shot at once or twice with automatic weapons or an RPG, and his nerves are raw. He is wearing Kevlar and ceramic body armor, a Kevlar helmet, a load carrying harness with ammunition, grenades, flex-cuffs, first-aid gear, water, and assorted other paraphernalia. His weapon weighs seven pounds, ten with a double magazine. His boots are bloused, and his long-sleeve shirt is buttoned at the wrist. It is between 100-110 degrees Fahrenheit at midday. He's been eating MRE's three times a day, when he has an appetite in this heat, and even his urine is beginning to smell like preservatives. Mosquitoes and sand flies plague him in the evenings, and he probably pulls a guard shift every night, never sleeping straight through. He and his comrades are beginning to get on each others' nerves. The rumors of 'going-home, not-going-home' are keeping him on an emotional roller coaster. Directives from on high are contradictory, confusing, and often stupid. The whole population seems hostile to him and he is developing a deep animosity for Iraq and all its people--as well as for official narratives.**
This is the lad who will hear from someone that George W. Bush, dressed in a suit with a belly full of rich food, just hurled a manly taunt from a 72-degree studio at the 'non-existent' Iraqi resistance.
This de facto president is finally seeing his poll numbers fall. Even chauvinist paranoia has a half-life, it seems. His legitimacy is being eroded as even the mainstream press has discovered now that the pretext for the war was a lie. It may have been control over the oil, after all. Anti-war forces are regrouping as an anti-occupation movement. Now, exercising his one true talent--blundering--George W. Bush has begun the improbable process of alienating the very troops upon whom he depends to carry out the neo-con ambition of restructuring the world by arms.
Somewhere in Balad, or Fallujah, or Baghdad, there is a soldier telling a new replacement, "We are losing this war."
Stan Goff is the author of "Hideous Dream: A Soldier's Memoir of the US Invasion of Haiti" (Soft Skull Press, 2000) and of the upcoming book "Full Spectrum Disorder" (Soft Skull Press, 2003). He retired in 1996 from the US Army, from 3rd Special Forces. He lives in Raleigh.
posted on July 3, 2003 01:54:03 PM new
If that guy joined in 1970, then he's been warming a chair in an air conditioned room during every conflict since Viet Nam. Sorry b@stard.
posted on July 3, 2003 02:18:30 PM newWe often fantasized together about shooting his (battalian commander's) helicopter down as a way of relieving our deep resentment against this faceless, starched and spit-shined despot
posted on July 3, 2003 02:26:11 PM new
Bush Wants To Bankrupt America: There is Method To His Madness
07/01/03: Some have wondered if GW Bush knows what he's doing with his tax cut that benefits the corporations and the very rich, and cuts away the remaining money of the poor and the middle class. I say yes, he does know what he'd up to, as do his corporate advisors and his neo-con economist friends and theorists, chief among them Grover Norquist. Norquist has been the chief architect behind the dismantling of the American federal financial structure in terms of benefits for the common citizen, but has helped to create the superstructure of tax breaks for the very rich and the corporatocracy that now has a choke-hold on America.
The plan is very simple, but not obvious on first blush. Make sure that all the money is gone from the U.S. treasury, make sure the deficits are so great that all social and educational programs are cut, increase the military and security budgets to "protect our nation" with all these monies going to corporations and security firms who are extra-national (not tied to any country, but actually more than multi-national in that they are outside the purview of any nation at any single moment) and stave in the social security fund by allowing it to go to private corporations for "investment"-and you have the perfect scenario for saying, "only the private sector can save us-we're broke and they have the money to run every program, fund every program, but of course, at huge costs and profits for the private corporations." Our only resource will be the corporate lenders, especially the large extra-national corporations who will have loyalty to no one except their corporate coffers and large share owners throughout the world.
This plan is so obvious at this point that it is hard to believe because it is happening so fast and the Democrats and even conservative non- neo-con Republicans don't realize what Bush and his neo-con buddies are up to.
Of course, this is easier to accomplish with all of our attention being focused on 9/11 matters, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the WMDs, threats to our nation, threats to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (where we lose troops everyday to Iraqis and Afghans fighting against our occupation), but we keep sending in more troops to basically protect Bechtel and Halliburton. Soon, we'll also hire private contractor troops, some from other countries and others from selected American security firms. All the time we are occupied with this, just as Orwell predicted in his novel, 1984, the Bush team will be destroying our civil liberties and taking away our social and educational programs in order to fund "security measures" and will keep blinking yellow, orange, and red codes at us.
I want to make this article short so that you have time to think about this and alert your congressperson and senator as to what's really going on. Bush has already started pushing for privatization in Iraq and Afghanistan and in America-it's only a short step from this huge debt he has created from the great surplus he inherited. *God only knows what kind of deficit he's going to create as he lets the dollar drop freely, so that consumers have to pay more for goods and our balance of trade goes to hell, the national debt at its current rate will take over 100 years to pay off-if we can even then get a hold on it according to some economists who are upset (see articles by Paul Krugman and others)sat the Bush team's actions. But they fail to see the real motive behind all this seeming disaster. Yes, it's a disaster for us, but it's a windfall for Bush and his corporate friends who will soon be running everything. *Actually, through their lobbying, they are running most things at this point-simply see the astounding inflation in drug prices compared to the low national inflation rate, the false "shortage of natural gas"-a commodity that is endless in the world and in its supply in America-the artificial shortage of electricity (as done by Enron and others to jack up prices and now FERC saying that though California did sign contracts with utilities under duress, they are still bound by the contracts even though they were lied to when signing the contracts-which is fraud in any honest person's mind, but not in the mind of FERC) and now our need for added security that is endless because it will not be long before Bush brings terrorists to our shores by either his behavior, or allows some actors within the Republican camp to fake terrorist raids so that possibly martial law will follow.
Friends, we are in a mess of catastrophic proportions on so many fronts that it will be difficult to unravel all the various strains of this explosive Bushian virus. I use the term virus, because Bush is trying to pack the courts with his appointees from the neo-con right, placing government officials in corporations and in some cases, in law schools so that the neo-con approach to the destruction of the federal government may have academic credentials and blessings. Yes, this is an artificially created virus intended to kill the patient-namely, our democracy and our formerly free and decent lives.
posted on July 3, 2003 02:28:47 PM new
ebayauctionguy
In recent wars, there have been "disappointed" servicemembers as there were and are in this war. So I don't understand what your point is.
Bush's daughters partied before and apparently after 9/11, putting their lives in danger of domestic terrorism and international terrorism. BTW there was a copy of the famous photo of them in one of Saddam's sons palaces. Which was an eye opener.
What I meant "in the public sector" was that it was not just a soldier on the battlefield without reporters and such. Instead the words have been seperate around the world, putting it in the public sector.
My sentiments is with Stan Goff. In recent times, we have gotten away from the BCs and other similar leaders being side by side with the troops, facing the enemy.
Part of military leadership is to get the troops to follow one's orders. One way is to show the troops that you aren't afraid to do what you are asking them to do. In this case, putting one's butt on the line and be part of the team. "I'm with you, standing right beside you, going through what you are going through." Instead of living in an ivory tower, grows resentment and destroys morale.
posted on July 3, 2003 02:35:42 PM new
While I am patiently waiting to find out where you were in 1970, ebayacutionguy, I would like to address this:
ebayauctionguy
"We often fantasized together about shooting his (battalian commander's) helicopter down as a way of relieving our deep resentment against this faceless, starched and spit-shined despot
You value the opinion of this piece of ssss?"
Firstly, you may want to change the last word to a more suitable one.
Secondly, I don't know to whom you were addressing, but I will answer. Yes, I do value it.
posted on July 3, 2003 02:52:03 PM new
Also, ebayauctionguy, there were a number of Vietnam Vets that became protesters against the war, once they got back to the states, because of leaders like this mentioned Battalion Commander as well as the government officials who were living in their ivory towers while they died or were maimed or otherwise suffered.
Some people think that the only reason we were in Vietnam was because of the US property in the country. We were allegedly protecting the fat cats' interests.
posted on July 3, 2003 02:53:15 PM new
The president's real goal in Iraq
By JAY BOOKMAN
Follow links for greater depth.
The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.
In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.
This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.
Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.
In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.
And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.
Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.
Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.
To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.
It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."
In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.
"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."
The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.
"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. stated two years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "
posted on July 3, 2003 03:26:20 PM new
ebayauctionguy
I gave some thought about the "disappointed" solders issue.
Some "disappointed" soldiers aren't, they are glad they are not there. While some who are geniunely "disappointed" are "disappointed" because the general civilian population is not regarding them as "high" as the soldiers who are there.
Also some wanted the "glory" of seeing action, so they can brag out it. Don't worry, years from now some of the "disappointed" soldiers will be sitting at the bar or at work or whereever, embellishing their military service, tryin to impress someone for whatever reason, maybe even to impress their opinions on boards like this.
And then there are those who do want to be there out of patriotic reasons.
posted on July 3, 2003 03:52:10 PM new
Is that Clarksville, TN? If so, you must be ex-101st. That's very disappointing. If you value the opinion of someone who thought it would be ok to waste his own battalion commander, then I won't even waste my time arguing with you.
[ edited by ebayauctionguy on Jul 3, 2003 03:57 PM ]
[ edited by Twelvepole on Jul 3, 2003 06:19 AM ]