"Bring Them On" Bush Says...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Do you mean this excuse of a declaration actually had an impact on US' tactics there ?

No - the M2HB is the M1 Abrams' commander's .50 caliber heavy / anti-aircraft (though it's about as useful as tits on a bull against moving aircraft) machine gun. The Abrams series carries two M240 7.62 mm NATO caliber medium machine guns - one mounted coaxially with the main gun, and one on a mount at the loader's hatch position. The M256A1 is the 120 mm smoothbore main gun on the M1A1 and M1A2 series.

I was snidely making the point that firepower on the ground is what does the real talking, not self-serving pompous hot air from the Oval Office.

[Kramerman]

MtG... sometime i get mixed signals from you...

Do you agree with the Iraq war and subsequent activity? do you agree with it only you would have done it differently? Or are you totally against US action over there?

[MichaeltheGreat]

I issue mixed signals.

I was against the war on the basis of timing, lack of adequate international manipulation to get everyone to be our *****es, lack of adequate force in place, and lack of preparation for occupation, rebuilding, and interim administration. I wasn't against removing Hussein, or murdering *******s in general, but I didn't buy into the whole imminent threat nonsense - these were and are third-world goat republic (can't even grow bananas) forces.

Given that we're already there, and it's a FUBAR, being against going in is kind of academic - it's about like regretting applying for airborne school halfway through your first combat jump in the dark.

So now, since we're stuck with running the ****ing ****hole and getting some useful result out of it before we get out, I'm in favor of pouring in whatever resources it takes to get that result, so we can really say "we won, here you go, slam, bam, thank you BMO, we'll send you a postcard."

If we have to kill people, we kill people; if we have to spend tons of money, create a welfare state until an actual economy gets running, then we can all chip in and adopt an Arab, for all I care - if it's a hundred billion or more bill, we're decisively engaged, and the whole Islamic world is looking for a sign of weakness, so we have no choice but to pay the price, and come out with the best possible result.

Unfortunately, aside from hollow speechmaking, I don't see any sign that the chickenchoking REMFs in DC have figured out we've got a real mess on our hands.

Will they ever beat us? Hell no. Can they make the cost and irritation factor high enough, and create enough enmity that we end up with a crap result? Hell yes.

[mindseye]

I don't know, but I can't help but think the men and women over there watching their buddies getting picked off one by one much appreciate Bush's message. Maybe soldiers on patrol in Humvees don't really want more RPGs "brought on".

Also, since when is flight school "cushy", especially on a Century Series interceptor?

It's cushy if you don't actually do much flying, and basically show up whenever you want. It's cushy if you used political influence to get signed up ahead of 100,000 others to avoid going overseas with the rest of the troops to fight "terrorists". With a track record like that, the recent chest thumping sounds a little hollow.

He took down a 35 year dictator in 30 days

Not to detract from the troops who put their lives on the line, but ... it didn't look like it was too terribly tough a fight.

Now is the hard part, the "nation building". This is where we see what our nation's resolve is really made of. Hopefully we'll do better than we've been doing in Afghanistan, but I'm not seeing the resources in place to do it with. But hey, at least Bechtel and Haliburton got their contracts assigned with lightning speed!

Too bad Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rove, et al didn't really care to think too much about the "nation building" part before sending in the tanks. Now it's too late, we're mired in exactly the thing Bush said he would not drag us into.

[mindseye]

But hey, repeat a lie especially in soundbyte format ("He's a deserter") and maybe people will start believing you, right Sava?

Hey, don't knock it, it works. It can even get you elected President.

"Al Gore said he invented the Internet."

[FrustratedPoet]

Anyone who doesn't recognise Bush's comment of "Bring it on" to be highly inappropriate is an absolute idiot and I wouldn't mind telling them so to their face. That's all I have to say on the matter. Have a nice day.

[Urban Ranger]

That Dubya is surely brave, I tell you. Sitting in the Oval Office, safe from harm's way, he proceeded to thump his chest and make a show of bravado.

[Sava]

Anyone who doesn't recognise Bush's comment of "Bring it on" to be highly inappropriate is an absolute idiot and I wouldn't mind telling them so to their face. That's all I have to say on the matter. Have a nice day

Lonestar: Not really.

Sinapus: It is okay to be skepticle of reports. But when there are pages and pages of evidence, and you still don't believe the truth... well, that's called DENIAL.

[TCO]

1. During the actual war, soldiers used pschological warfare (soundtrucks calling the enemy cowards and the like) to get forces into the open.

2. Don';t just look at the negative, Sava. Is the statement going to enrage enemies (whop would otherwise have stayied quiet) or will it show the enemy that we have conviction. EVerything we've seen in dealing with Saddam and his forces shows that a strong front is better.

[RGBVideo]

Sava -- >

[Sava]

Don';t just look at the negative, Sava. Is the statement going to enrage enemies (whop would otherwise have stayied quiet) or will it show the enemy that we have conviction. EVerything we've seen in dealing with Saddam and his forces shows that a strong front is better

There's a difference between rooting out existing enemies and creating new ones. I'm also concerned about potential terracts. If there are terrorists in the US, I'd rather they not be stirred up. I'd rather law enforcement have more time in order to find them, instead of challenging them. Likewise for our troops in Iraq. I'd rather have our military hunt down the Saddam loyalists than have them mount some sort of massive offensive. I want to be on the offensive, not the defensive.

[MichaeltheGreat]

So when are you joining up, big boy? I'm sure 3ID or 4ID has some openings for 11-Mikes.

[TCO]

Me?

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Sava
Sinapus: It is okay to be skepticle of reports. But when there are pages and pages of evidence, and you still don't believe the truth... well, that's called DENIAL.

What does one call seizing upon evidence, no matter how flimsy (or repeated over and over), to smear some politician one hates, whilst ignoring facts that dispute said evidence?

(No, I'm not going to be impressed if you whine that Republicans do it toooooooo.... Though I might be tempted to convince a Republican to jump off a bridge and then demand you do so tooooooo...)

[Sava]

no matter how flimsy

I don't consider Bush's OFFICIAL MILITARY RECORDS to be flimsy...