What should the response be to people who encourage attacks on the troops giving their lives to help regime change in Iraq?
Uh, I’m just guessing here, but we could vote them out of office.
And we all know that the only reason those attacks are occuring is due to his statement. :rolleyes:
You should just stick with the fact that he sent the troops there in the first place if you want to do some serious Bush bashing.
It’s a figure of speech, isn’t it? I mean “beating around the bush” isn’t about either pummelling the President or female masturbation; it’s about failure to confront a topic directly. “Bring them on” is typically a rather chest-thumping way of saying, “don’t you dare”. It’s one of those expressions whose sarcasm is intended to convey the opposite.
BubbaDog - so it’s OK to encourage attacks against americans, because after all anti-americans won’t be swayed by mere words? OK. Let me go start a thread saying “Iraqis, go ahead and throw bombs at us!” I’m sure no one here would get their panties in a bunch.
Libertarian - is english your second language? “Bring 'em on” doesn’t mean “don’t you dare”. It means “hit me with your best shot, there’s no way you can hurt me.” It’s an encouragement for people to try and attack you.
Elysian - I congratulate you for not voting for the Shrub in 2004.
If you’ve got something specific in mind, let’s hear it.
I’m SO against this war. I’m SO against Bush and everything he and his administration stand for. I think they’re scum of the earth and that there hasn’t been a single thing done since he took office that was pure of heart.
That having been said…
If you are trying to imply that Bush’s comment to “bring them on” is what is, well, bringing the attacks on, you’re reaching. In an interview with the cleric, he won’t be saying, “but your president, he told us to bring it on-and we did…” Bush’s statement is part of the sad state of affairs of how the war has been handled and a disgusting show of bravado and ego from POTUS, but most definitely not an endorsement or the condoning of attacks upon our troops.
Put a hand on each shoulder. Remove head from ass.
Sam
True enough, but his actions pretty much said “bring it on” as well. We went into that country with no provocation and started bombing people out of their homes. That action pretty much had “bring it on” written all over it.
I’m constantly amazed at the people that that get upset when Iraqi soldiers fight back. “Look how terrible they are”, they shout, “shooting at our fresh-faced all-American young men. Those Iraqis must be animals!”
(Not that I’ve heard much of that attitude on this board, but I’ve heard it elsewhere.)
tdn, I specifically take aim at the OP, not Bush’s actions. Those, I will agree with. His actions though, are what our soldiers are dying for now, not his words(or really, his decisions, since his ass isn’t on the line over there).
Sam
Bring it on = let’s get it on, not don’t you dare.
I believe that the latest military action in Falusha (sp?) is saying “bring’um on” louder than Bush’s speech. One report I saw said 40 civilian dead. On the news last nite an American officer was saying they would deal with these “terrorists” while the media is referring to them as “guerilla’s”
This is a fucking mess. And people are dying.
And to make things worse those civies were in a “mosque complex”. I understand that if people hide in holy places all bets are off, but I also realize that it isn’t going to make us look any better.
I’ll take “impeachment hearings” for $500, Alex.
What?
Whaddaya mean, “not available”?
Aw, geez… !#$%@?^%&! Republican-controlled Congress…
That is stretching it, Libertarian. Use the “angry guy at a bar” test: if you told someone who you’d just spilled your drink on to “bring it on,” that would be tantamount to “step outside.” And “step outside” doesn’t mean “let’s get some fresh air,” either.
I think the philosophy behind Bush’s “bring ‘em on” statement was that it’s better for the terrorists to attack our armed forces on foreign turf than to have them attacking American civilians in our cities.
The problem with this philosophy, however, is that it’s rooted in the Bush administration’s belief that Iraq was a big Al Qaeda base before the war.
Thanks to this damn fool war, it may well be one in the future.
Regardless of who you think is right and what you believe, I can’t understand how these people are being called terrorists. If this is a war or an occupation, it’s still Iraqi people fighting invaders of their land. I don’t care how evil one may think that they are, I don’t think that it’s at all accurate to call them terrorists.
They’re Arabs, muslims, Jackknifed, can’t you see that this is a “terrorist insurgence”? The “Guerilla” warriors, and “insurgents” are wreaking terror on our military…they’re even rioting. Still can’t see the “terrorist acts”?**
Neither can I.
Sam
**-please note there was a large amount of sarcasm in this last post.
I agree w/you. Iraqi people taking arms against an armed foreign force on Iraqi soil are not correctly referred to as ‘terrorists’. however, it is essential from the administration’s POV, that the term be used, to invoke images of 9/11, to continue w/the charade that this is part of the ‘War on Terror’ [sup]TM[/sup].
I heard something about some of them being former REpublican Guards, which would again invoke the ‘evil dictator’ factor as well. It is, again, essential for the perception to be other than “average Iraqi people wanting foreign soldiers out of their country”.
I understand, I was just expanding on the thought, then going off on a wild tengent. 