Bush Said Bring-em On!

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
73
Boston
AR182 said:
i would like to make a few points:

d. that war was fought during a time when the u.s. internally was in chaos over that war & many young men chose different alternatives than being shipped to nam. some went into the reserve(bush), some of them used school(clinton) as a reason to avoid the war, or some went into journalism(gore) so they could report on the war instead of actively fighting.

btw, does anyone know where we could find the military records of the democratic candidates?

I'm back. I think Kerry's record is availible for you to look at.

This thread is about Bush talking tough. My opinion on his tough talk that I already posted was that it was directed to us, not the Iraqi's. It was a sound bite he made because early in this war when we were fighting pickup trucks with tanks he got some good mileage out of his tough talk. But when he had a chance to do more than talk tough he backed down and took the cowards way out.

Clinton didn't serve that is true. But at least he was man enough to say he was against the war. Gore did serve and spent active duty in Vietnam. Why that doesn't count to you? Bush on the other hand didn't serve. He used his political connections to put him in a position where he didn't have to serve. While at the same time not being man enpugh to speak out against a war he didn't want to fight. Kind of like hiding behind his mommys skirt. Now that other guys are in danger he talks from a thousand miles away and says "Bring it on." Just a stupid thing to say.

Granted that statement looms very small compared to the other atrocities commited by that family.

Just look at who he surrounded himself with and you can see that this team was put together for just one thing and that was to attack Iraq.

No one wants to talk facts when it comes to this guy. It is all well Clinton did this, or you are a liberal, or the media did it! Hell, Kerry went to Nam and got medals but you post a question about any of the Dems military record. Gore served in Nam too but you question his ethics because he was just a journalist. Bush joined a chicken outfit and went AWOL from that but somehow thats ok because he talks tough?

Things changed after 9-11 that is true and judging by his past, which is all we have to judge him by, I don't think he is the guy to be leading us.
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
Stevie D you show your obvious bias by claiming Gore's journalist duties in 'Nam....

i happen to know for a fact that Gore was protected by daddy to never be near any action

but you exalt this and put down Bush???

Tell you what....if I am a family member of a victim of 9-11 you better believe I would be the first one to tell those POS terrorists to bring it on cuz I would want a piece of their ass

and I am proud of my president who speaks my mind
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
stevie,

my post wasn't aimed all aimed at you. maybe i didn't phraes it properly.

i am not knocking clinton at all. i was just mentioning that they both used the same intelligence to try to disarm saddam. i mentioned, this because someone asked in this thread, where were the wmd's that bush gave for the reason for attacking iraq.

bush had the chance to serve in the national guard, & took it. clinton had the oppurtunity to go to oxford(?) & took it. gore was a journalist during the conflict, & took that duty instead of active duty. i am not criticizing any of them. it was their decision. they have to live with it, like us when we make a decision. i don't criticize people i don't know about their decisions.

but my point was that because a president didn't serve in the military does not make him a bad war time president. and the president has to make a decision on what he thinks is right. he can't say to himself, "i didn't serve in the military so i can't send troops into conflict." we have to have faith in the system , that bush was elected president, whether you like it or not, & he did what he thought was right. samething with clinton. i didn't buy the theory that clinton's opponents gave for him bombing iraq in 1998, was to put the monica situation on the back pages. call me naive but i like to believe in the system, until proven otherwise.

i never said that clinton did nothing. you must have me mixed up with another poster(i voted for clinton twice, & gore). i said that all he did was long range bombing into iraq. i thought he should have done more.

i don't know how you can say that bush hasn't done anything about the terrorist situation.it must be your dislike for bush that you can't see what the military has done & what the freezing of alqaeda's money has done. although i questioned the military relying too much on the honesty of the natives, who let some of alqaeda's members slip away thru the mtns., the u.s. broke up an alqaeda base of operations & defeated the gov't that was protecting them in afghanistan. alqaeda is now on the run & are having difficulties establishing a base of operations. we don't know what any other president would do. it is just quessing.

there are many reasons why the u.s. allies didn't contribute in the war on iraq. countries like china, france, germany, & russia were making illegal deals with saddam by selling arms, etc. to him.in other words we were upsetting the money making machine that these countries illegally set up with saddam.

there is more i would like to say but it is my turn to go out.maybe i will continue when i get back.

just one more point. i asked about where i can view a politician's military record is because i don't know where to look.
 

maverick2112

Registered User
Forum Member
Jan 16, 2001
2,967
5
38
Wyoming
Heres the problem I have with GW........I dont really care that much about his military service, he is still the president so he makes the calls.......He just has to many big ties to the oil business for me to feel confortable with this Iraq situation. I just cant help but feel this whole situation was a business decision rather than a security decision. Maybe if I really thought Iraq was a bigger threat to us but after the fight they put up for their own country, I cant help but think they were a lot weaker than they thought they were.

I remember watching Bin Laden on 60 minutes a few yrs back and he was threatening to do something big to the US. I remember thinking to myself.........when some asshole gets on national TV and threatens the US and our people we should just have a policy there and then to take the guy out.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
All I was saying his comment was dumb. Has nothing to do with other presidents or anyone else for that matter. I just hate to see our soldiers have to sit in Iraq and defend that kind of BS.
Like I said that comment is the kind that comes from 18 year old dip chits. Sorry guys that I believe is fact. And telling idiots like terroist to bring it on is as dumb as it gets. Time for a new one from Bush so we can have some fun with it. You can count on it happening. This one has been beat to death. I can only hope things get better for our folks in Iraq. If nothing else someone have the Balls To Turn Our Guys Loose. I dont give a chit if we make any friends. I thought we went there for other reasons then makeing friends. You want to kill our soldiers. Ok you die and your Childen over 17 can die right with you. See how long they want to play there little game. But you see folks it wont happen were doing same chit we started doing in Nam. Our folks have one hand tied behind there back. We act as we learned nothing. That pisses me off more then anything else.
Tough talk wont buy you a drink of water.
So bring it on is BS. Always was BS. That talk should be left for the 18 and under crowd. And by the way. I Believe most guys that talk that BS are Chicken chit.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
73
Boston
Freeze, show me where I exalted Gore. I don't even like the guy. But he was in Nam which is more the Dubya can say.
And I don't think a President has to serve in the military I just think he can learn how to talk instead of making everything he does a photo op or a sound bite. These are serious times we are living in.
But you see what they do. They can't argue Bush and his Vietnam Record so they say ya well Gore was only a journalist.
We need a President who is willing to lead, not campaign.
 
Last edited:

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
stevie:"We need a President who is willing to lead, not campaign."

unfortunately there is no such animal. they are all campaigning for either off year elections or for their own re-election.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,534
225
63
Bowling Green Ky
Hmmm IMHO ones abilty to lead in war as president and commander and chief has little to do with what we as civilians think but how he is perceived by our military ranks who are the ones out there. His leadership capabilities dictates their morale among other important aspects. There is little doubt his visit to the ship and military bases is partially political but little doubt the also that the looks of pride and assurance on the military where for real. They believe in him and thats what counts.
On the flip side you have prior commander and chief who
shows up at "the wall" on verterns day and is immediately shown the south end of vets facing north and they did so thru his entire little spiel :p
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Lost two more guys last night. DTB this is starting to sound like nam. I know this is one or two a day and nam was 20 to 30. But are guys have to be given green light shoot first talk second.
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
Progress behind the headlines http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030709-093343-5336r.htm


By Donald Lambro



The American-led movement toward democracy is slowly but surely gaining strength in Iraq. Of course you might never know it from the newspaper and television reports coming out of Baghdad lately. The bloody but sporadic guerrilla attacks by remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime have been capturing all of the headlines here, while the process of democratic governance, still in its infancy, has clearly begun to take root ? though rarely gets reported in any depth in the national news media.

What began as sparsely attended, local, municipal council meetings in underground bunkers lit by a single light bulb, which sometimes went out during power outages, is drawing more robust attendance by Iraqis who are relishing their new-found freedoms.

With soldiers and tanks surrounding the building, and helicopters flying overhead, the Interim City Advisory Council opened up for business this week in Baghdad, peopled by brave Iraqis men and women who want to take charge of their country.

L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator who is running Iraq in the interim, called the meeting "perhaps the most important day for Baghdad since 9 April, when coalition forces liberated you." It was indeed.

Council members gave Mr. Bremer a wooden gavel and block. They are not only symbols of representative democracy but also "a symbol of law and order that we all crave," said council chairman Khaled Basher Mirza to a burst of sustained applause.

Notably, the 37-member council has six women, a rare departure in a country so dominated by men. The advisory council is the product of 88 local councils formed throughout the capital in May when attendance at such gatherings was small. Now hundreds of Iraqis are showing up for their meetings despite the threats by Saddam Hussein's henchmen that they will have their tongues cut out or will be blown to smithereens for cooperating with U.S. forces there.

Another newly elected City Council in the southern Shi'ite city of Najif also began its deliberations this week. About a week ago, the city's mayor was denounced by Iraqi leaders as a tool of Saddam's Ba'ath Party and was summarily fired. Democracy can be wonderfully swift and efficient.

But this is just the beginning. These and other advisory councils are the precursors to elected city councils after a nationwide referendum is held on an Iraqi constitution in a few months.

What a moment that will be in the history of a new democratic Iraq. The sight of elected Iraqi councilors, at substantial risk to their lives and their families' lives, voting to be independent, free and self-governing.

All of this, reminiscent of America's own revolution against a despotic rule, has not received the news media attention it demands and deserves. The focus has been almost totally on the attacks by Iraqi guerrillas against U.S. troops and the Iraqis people themselves who are working with us to establish a new government to replace Saddam's hated regime.

Day in and day out a repetitive drumbeat of stories paint a gloomy, pessimistic, hopeless picture of U.S. military forces under constant seige and of Iraqis wondering if they are any better off.

In one bizzare report, a nightly news network showed an Iraqi telling reporters at some length that his country was better off under Saddam Hussein. I mean, really. Was this guy a Saddam loyalist, one of his torturers, a former military official? The story didn't say.

And why broadcast his views anyway? After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there were displaced communist officials who said they were better under the old system, but that ignorant, self-serving view did not represent the majority views of the Soviet people who toppled statues of Lenin and cheered the fall of communism.

Sure the despicable attacks on our soldiers needs to be reported, but so does the story about Iraq struggling to rebuild itself against great odds, threats and intimidation and the progress that has been made thus far.

After all, this is what our brave men and women fought, bled and died for ? to topple a terrorist regime so that Iraq would be free and the world could be made a little safer from terrorism.

As a result, we are witnessing the birth of a new democracy in the Middle East, a region that has long been hostile to freedom and popularly elected government. One Iraqi, reveling in the profusion of newspapers in free Baghdad, told a reporter, "I read a different newspaper every day."

Funny thing about democracy, it's contagious. The Iranian protesters are now demanding the same freedom the Iraqis have. The democratic reform movement has taken on a new life in Saudi Arabia. Before the year is out the Iraqis will be voting on a new government of their own making.

These are some of the stories that demand much more attention than they are getting. The American people, who sent their best and bravest to free Iraq, deserve no less.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,534
225
63
Bowling Green Ky
DVJ Was bad rememeries I know bud--but I believe the figures(deaths) on Vietnam averaged 535/week. I do see similarity in the no fire zone restrictions which as you know were a bitch,when you can't engage until AFTER there has been casualty in most instances.

Turf I think there is a lot of truth in that. I think people have not forgot how Bush Sr & Swarzkoff deserted them after promises to support them and I can't say I blame them one bit. Thousands died and were tortured as result. That was a lie of the very worse kind.Until Saddam is officially caught or dead I think they will tread very lightly about openly supporting us.
 
Last edited:

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
That's the problem. Who would you have them shoot, DJV? I haven't read about the latest deaths, but mostly these are hit and run attacks with RPG's or small arms fire. They disappear into the night and we have another guy or two dead and maybe a couple wounded. It's not like we are being classically engaged and that we aren't pulling the trigger because of the rules of engagement. The alternative to trying to shoot at ghosts is to recklessly shoot at the civilians that we 'liberated'.

It's not that our hands are tied. It's that it's nearly impossible to identify which one or two people out of the masses will be the next to make a cowardly attack on our guys. As long as there are still people there that hate us and/or support Saddam, we will have these 'little' attacks and there isn't anything we can do about it.



djv said:
Lost two more guys last night. DTB this is starting to sound like nam. I know this is one or two a day and nam was 20 to 30. But are guys have to be given green light shoot first talk second.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I know Kosar. I just feal that pain for our guys. I mean you see someone out in front of you, your not sure if thats a gun. You wait a split second and you could be dead. Heck I think some of our police right here at home won't take that chance anymore. So I guess im saying let our soldiers have some elbow room.
Yes DTB there are not many good memories about nam. Im just getting old and cranky. There are days I wish I could be in Iraq to help. I would like to take a couple of the tough talking guys from here with me. Then I would see how tough they really are. I would bring extra toilet paper with. DTB im sure you know what I mean. ;)
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Rumsfeld says new instructions may be needed. What are we waiting for.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top