Bush regrets "Bring 'em on" taunt to Iraqi insurgents

[sweetiewynn 0]

Bush doesn't regret anything. Everything went exactly as planned and him and all his chronies were able to instill martial law in America while at the same time maintaining the same war profiteering tradition that his grandfather did with the Nazis, his father did in Cuba and Iraq, and now junior is keeping the war profiteering tradition alive. It's a conspiracy folks, wake up and realize it for the sake of your children.

He's not YOUR president, he's a very intelligent man acting like a dumb hayseed and is merely a puppet for the same families who've been controlling things since 1776 when the Illuminati first set up shop in Bavaria. Check your history and look up Skull and Bones or find out why Prescott Bush had his bank seized (it was a Nazi bank he was director of) or check out why King George the first tried to deny he was director of the CIA when Kennedy was assassinated saying "It must be another George Bush who was director of the CIA, it wasn't me." Conspiracy folks, see for yourselves...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You however state that muslims are killing eachother BECAUSE of the U.S. occupation. This is not acceptable.

I did not state any such thing. I stated that the "insurgecy"in Iraq in a direct result of our illegal invasion. Those are two different statements entirely.

You can't sit there and complain about the "enemy" not following the rules when your own country has been breaking the rules the very moment it marched into a country it had absolutely no business or authority to march into and that continues to break the rules as it conducts an illegal act of aggression. If everyone was playing by the rules, we wouldn't be in Iraq today. If we weren't in Iraq today, there would be no "insurgency" there. It's just that simple.

[ual777 0]

You however state that muslims are killing eachother BECAUSE of the U.S. occupation. This is not acceptable.

I did not state any such thing. I stated that the "insurgecy"in Iraq in a direct result of our illegal invasion. Those are two different statements entirely.

You can't sit there and complain about the "enemy" not following the rules when your own country has been breaking the rules the very moment it marched into a country it had absolutely no business or authority to march into and that continues to break the rules as it conducts an illegal act of aggression. If everyone was playing by the rules, we wouldn't be in Iraq today. If we weren't in Iraq today, there would be no "insurgency" there. It's just that simple.

Ok, so in your mind, if ANYONE invades another country, that gives the local residents authority to kill civilians and commit gross atrocities?

Again, I am not justyfing the war in Iraq, as a said earlier, I think we shouldnt be there, but I am talking about how to win militarily so our boys can go home.

I want you to justify the beheadings, suicide bombings, and murders that these 'insurgents' commit. Its all ok because the U.S. is here?

[Ban Hammer 13,645]

You however state that muslims are killing eachother BECAUSE of the U.S. occupation. This is not acceptable.

I did not state any such thing. I stated that the "insurgecy"in Iraq in a direct result of our illegal invasion. Those are two different statements entirely.

You can't sit there and complain about the "enemy" not following the rules when your own country has been breaking the rules the very moment it marched into a country it had absolutely no business or authority to march into and that continues to break the rules as it conducts an illegal act of aggression. If everyone was playing by the rules, we wouldn't be in Iraq today. If we weren't in Iraq today, there would be no "insurgency" there. It's just that simple.

countries have rules regarding war, which the insurgents refuse to follow. as far as one country marching into another, that occurs all the time. check out some news on africa. also, were you one of those all up in arms when saddam marched into kuwait, or does your outrage only extend to that when the usa does it?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You however state that muslims are killing eachother BECAUSE of the U.S. occupation. This is not acceptable.

I did not state any such thing. I stated that the "insurgecy"in Iraq in a direct result of our illegal invasion. Those are two different statements entirely.

You can't sit there and complain about the "enemy" not following the rules when your own country has been breaking the rules the very moment it marched into a country it had absolutely no business or authority to march into and that continues to break the rules as it conducts an illegal act of aggression. If everyone was playing by the rules, we wouldn't be in Iraq today. If we weren't in Iraq today, there would be no "insurgency" there. It's just that simple.

countries have rules regarding war, which the insurgents refuse to follow. as far as one country marching into another, that occurs all the time. check out some news on africa. also, were you one of those all up in arms when saddam marched into kuwait, or does your outrage only extend to that when the usa does it?

Countries also have agreed to rules of when and when not to invade one another. It's kind of dishonest to point fingers at others for not following the rules when oneself isn't following the rules. Saddam marched into Kuwait and was pushed back accordingly and sanctioned thereafter. And I supported the action against the aggressing nation and it's dictator 100%. I supported it because it happened all within the framework of the international law which Saddam broke when he invaded Kuwait. W broke the same international laws when he invaded Iraq. He ain't no better than Saddam in that regard.

Edited May 28, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Ban Hammer 13,645]

You however state that muslims are killing eachother BECAUSE of the U.S. occupation. This is not acceptable.

I did not state any such thing. I stated that the "insurgecy"in Iraq in a direct result of our illegal invasion. Those are two different statements entirely.

You can't sit there and complain about the "enemy" not following the rules when your own country has been breaking the rules the very moment it marched into a country it had absolutely no business or authority to march into and that continues to break the rules as it conducts an illegal act of aggression. If everyone was playing by the rules, we wouldn't be in Iraq today. If we weren't in Iraq today, there would be no "insurgency" there. It's just that simple.

countries have rules regarding war, which the insurgents refuse to follow. as far as one country marching into another, that occurs all the time. check out some news on africa. also, were you one of those all up in arms when saddam marched into kuwait, or does your outrage only extend to that when the usa does it?

Countries also have agreed to rules of when and when not to invade one another. It's kind of dishonest to point fingers at others for not following the rules when oneself isn't following the rules. Saddam marched into Kuwait and was pushed back accordingly and sanctioned thereafter. And I supported the action against the aggressing nation and it's dictator 100%. I supported it because it happened all within the framework of the international law which Saddam broke when he invaded Kuwait. W broke the same international laws when he invaded Iraq. He ain't no better than Saddam in that regard.

so what you are saying essentially is countries can only do such when approved by the united nations?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You however state that muslims are killing eachother BECAUSE of the U.S. occupation. This is not acceptable.

I did not state any such thing. I stated that the "insurgecy"in Iraq in a direct result of our illegal invasion. Those are two different statements entirely.

You can't sit there and complain about the "enemy" not following the rules when your own country has been breaking the rules the very moment it marched into a country it had absolutely no business or authority to march into and that continues to break the rules as it conducts an illegal act of aggression. If everyone was playing by the rules, we wouldn't be in Iraq today. If we weren't in Iraq today, there would be no "insurgency" there. It's just that simple.

Ok, so in your mind, if ANYONE invades another country, that gives the local residents authority to kill civilians and commit gross atrocities?

Again, you manage to read statements into my posts that I did not make. Why is that?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You however state that muslims are killing eachother BECAUSE of the U.S. occupation. This is not acceptable.

I did not state any such thing. I stated that the "insurgecy"in Iraq in a direct result of our illegal invasion. Those are two different statements entirely.

You can't sit there and complain about the "enemy" not following the rules when your own country has been breaking the rules the very moment it marched into a country it had absolutely no business or authority to march into and that continues to break the rules as it conducts an illegal act of aggression. If everyone was playing by the rules, we wouldn't be in Iraq today. If we weren't in Iraq today, there would be no "insurgency" there. It's just that simple.

countries have rules regarding war, which the insurgents refuse to follow. as far as one country marching into another, that occurs all the time. check out some news on africa. also, were you one of those all up in arms when saddam marched into kuwait, or does your outrage only extend to that when the usa does it?

Countries also have agreed to rules of when and when not to invade one another. It's kind of dishonest to point fingers at others for not following the rules when oneself isn't following the rules. Saddam marched into Kuwait and was pushed back accordingly and sanctioned thereafter. And I supported the action against the aggressing nation and it's dictator 100%. I supported it because it happened all within the framework of the international law which Saddam broke when he invaded Kuwait. W broke the same international laws when he invaded Iraq. He ain't no better than Saddam in that regard.

so what you are saying essentially is countries can only do such when approved by the united nations?

That's the law. You may not like it but that's what it is. Bottom line is this: If we can willy-nilly march into Iraq based on nothing but our desire to do so, then Iraq, by the same token, should have been afforded the same right back in 1990/91 when they decided to invade Kuwait. But we were all up in arms about that. Why, exactly, if not for Iraq breaking international law? And why is it alright for the US to break it?

[Ban Hammer 13,645]

You however state that muslims are killing eachother BECAUSE of the U.S. occupation. This is not acceptable.

I did not state any such thing. I stated that the "insurgecy"in Iraq in a direct result of our illegal invasion. Those are two different statements entirely.

You can't sit there and complain about the "enemy" not following the rules when your own country has been breaking the rules the very moment it marched into a country it had absolutely no business or authority to march into and that continues to break the rules as it conducts an illegal act of aggression. If everyone was playing by the rules, we wouldn't be in Iraq today. If we weren't in Iraq today, there would be no "insurgency" there. It's just that simple.

countries have rules regarding war, which the insurgents refuse to follow. as far as one country marching into another, that occurs all the time. check out some news on africa. also, were you one of those all up in arms when saddam marched into kuwait, or does your outrage only extend to that when the usa does it?

Countries also have agreed to rules of when and when not to invade one another. It's kind of dishonest to point fingers at others for not following the rules when oneself isn't following the rules. Saddam marched into Kuwait and was pushed back accordingly and sanctioned thereafter. And I supported the action against the aggressing nation and it's dictator 100%. I supported it because it happened all within the framework of the international law which Saddam broke when he invaded Kuwait. W broke the same international laws when he invaded Iraq. He ain't no better than Saddam in that regard.

so what you are saying essentially is countries can only do such when approved by the united nations?

That's the law. You may not like it but that's what it is. Bottom line is this: If we can willy-nilly march into Iraq based on nothing but our desire to do so, then Iraq, by the same token, should have been afforded the same right back in 1990/91 when they decided to invade Kuwait. But we were all up in arms about that. Why, exactly, if not for Iraq breaking international law? And why is it alright for the US to break it?

so what law is this that states we need un approval for such? or that any country needs un approval prior to invasion?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You however state that muslims are killing eachother BECAUSE of the U.S. occupation. This is not acceptable.

I did not state any such thing. I stated that the "insurgecy"in Iraq in a direct result of our illegal invasion. Those are two different statements entirely.

You can't sit there and complain about the "enemy" not following the rules when your own country has been breaking the rules the very moment it marched into a country it had absolutely no business or authority to march into and that continues to break the rules as it conducts an illegal act of aggression. If everyone was playing by the rules, we wouldn't be in Iraq today. If we weren't in Iraq today, there would be no "insurgency" there. It's just that simple.

countries have rules regarding war, which the insurgents refuse to follow. as far as one country marching into another, that occurs all the time. check out some news on africa. also, were you one of those all up in arms when saddam marched into kuwait, or does your outrage only extend to that when the usa does it?

Countries also have agreed to rules of when and when not to invade one another. It's kind of dishonest to point fingers at others for not following the rules when oneself isn't following the rules. Saddam marched into Kuwait and was pushed back accordingly and sanctioned thereafter. And I supported the action against the aggressing nation and it's dictator 100%. I supported it because it happened all within the framework of the international law which Saddam broke when he invaded Kuwait. W broke the same international laws when he invaded Iraq. He ain't no better than Saddam in that regard.

so what you are saying essentially is countries can only do such when approved by the united nations?

That's the law. You may not like it but that's what it is. Bottom line is this: If we can willy-nilly march into Iraq based on nothing but our desire to do so, then Iraq, by the same token, should have been afforded the same right back in 1990/91 when they decided to invade Kuwait. But we were all up in arms about that. Why, exactly, if not for Iraq breaking international law? And why is it alright for the US to break it?

so what law is this that states we need un approval for such? or that any country needs un approval prior to invasion?

The UN Charter, to which the US is a party, provides that it is up to the UN Security council alone to authorize the use of force against any country that threatens international peace and stability. That is unless a country takes action to defend itself from an agressor or against an imminent threat (remember that terminology?) until the Security Council had a chance to act. Now, that exception does absolutely not apply in this case - to make such claim would be so ridiculous that not even this administration tries to go down that road. Hence, since no authority for a military intervention was ever given by the UN Security council for the military invasion into Iraq in March of 2003, it as much an illegal act of aggression as the Iraqi invasion into Kuwait back in 1990/91. There's no moral high ground to be claimed by the US. None whatsoever.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The reason we have the UN charter is to prevent a repeat of WW2, which as everyone knows was started by Nazi Germany annexing and invading Poland.

There has to be some international laws and codes of conduct. You can't just do whatever the hell you like and say 'nuts' to world opinion.

Whatever you feel about the UN - it is fair to say that since WW2 (when the UN was formed) the western world has enjoyed the longest period of stability in history. I for one wouldn't be so quick to abandon that. That's not to say the UN isn't due for some sort of reform.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Whatever you feel about the UN - it is fair to say that since WW2 (when the UN was formed) the western world has enjoyed the longest period of stability in history. I for one wouldn't be so quick to abandon that. That's not to say the UN isn't due for some sort of reform.

Exactly. What's really interesting is that those that would like to justify the illegal invasion with Saddam's reluctance to comply with UN Security Council resolutions always conveniently forget that while Saddam may have been in non-compliance with a bunch of resolutions, the US is in non-compliance with the very charter that gave those resolutions any weight to begin with. It's that stinking arrogant pick-and-choose-whatever-floats-my-fcuking-boat mentality (which the US has slowly but surely made it's own) that pisses the rest of the world off. Rightfully so, I might add...

[ual777 0]

You however state that muslims are killing eachother BECAUSE of the U.S. occupation. This is not acceptable.

I did not state any such thing. I stated that the "insurgecy"in Iraq in a direct result of our illegal invasion. Those are two different statements entirely.

You can't sit there and complain about the "enemy" not following the rules when your own country has been breaking the rules the very moment it marched into a country it had absolutely no business or authority to march into and that continues to break the rules as it conducts an illegal act of aggression. If everyone was playing by the rules, we wouldn't be in Iraq today. If we weren't in Iraq today, there would be no "insurgency" there. It's just that simple.

Ok, so in your mind, if ANYONE invades another country, that gives the local residents authority to kill civilians and commit gross atrocities?

Again, you manage to read statements into my posts that I did not make. Why is that?

You said 'the insurgency is a result of our is a direct result of our illegal invasion.' The insurgency includes beheadings, bombing of mosques, the killing of government officials and their families, the kidnapping and murdering of journalists, etc. etc.

You are saying it is a result of the U.S. invasion is that correct?

I don't sugar coat, and I call it like I see it. The insurgency, and more importantly the way its carried out, is a result of islamic extremism. Yes the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq, that is granted. However the fact that the U.S. is there, and trying to establish a democratic government and leave, does NOT justify the actions of the insurgents.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You however state that muslims are killing eachother BECAUSE of the U.S. occupation. This is not acceptable.

I did not state any such thing. I stated that the "insurgecy"in Iraq in a direct result of our illegal invasion. Those are two different statements entirely.

You can't sit there and complain about the "enemy" not following the rules when your own country has been breaking the rules the very moment it marched into a country it had absolutely no business or authority to march into and that continues to break the rules as it conducts an illegal act of aggression. If everyone was playing by the rules, we wouldn't be in Iraq today. If we weren't in Iraq today, there would be no "insurgency" there. It's just that simple.

Ok, so in your mind, if ANYONE invades another country, that gives the local residents authority to kill civilians and commit gross atrocities?

Again, you manage to read statements into my posts that I did not make. Why is that?

You said 'the insurgency is a result of our is a direct result of our illegal invasion.' The insurgency includes beheadings, bombing of mosques, the killing of government officials and their families, the kidnapping and murdering of journalists, etc. etc.

You are saying it is a result of the U.S. invasion is that correct?

I don't sugar coat, and I call it like I see it. The insurgency, and more importantly the way its carried out, is a result of islamic extremism. Yes the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq, that is granted. However the fact that the U.S. is there, and trying to establish a democratic government and leave, does NOT justify the actions of the insurgents.

The insurgency is a consequence of the US invasion, I don't think that's too hard to understand. I mean... it wasn't there before we went in right...?

Pointing to cause and effect does not amount to justification. I don't see anyone making the claim that the insurgents actions and methods are justifiable. Just that the security situation is the result of, and ultimate responsibility of the US who decided to invade, and took on that responsibility when they did.

[Melo 1]

Have any of you seen the Power of Nightmares? It is quite an eye-opener... if you have the opportunity to see it please do... Islamic extremism and the Neo-con ideology stem from the same premise... does that surprise you???