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

[sweetiewynn 0]

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???

No, why would it surprise anyone? We know Al-Quaida was not only funded by the CIA (remember the great American "hero" Ollie North?) but was actually formed by the CIA for the purpose of instigating terror acts so that the opposing government could step in and offer their solution. It's not that they stem from the same premise, it's that they ARE the same premise. Just because some of them are brown doesn't make them any different.

[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?

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.

Thank You!

[Chuckles 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.

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?

Just to point out a technicality, according to United Nations charter, Iraq broke 19 UN directives placed after the kuwait war. They refused to help UN weapons inspectors, and according to UN law where subject to invasion. So your UN defense does not hold water.

[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?

Just to point out a technicality, according to United Nations charter, Iraq broke 19 UN directives placed after the kuwait war. They refused to help UN weapons inspectors, and according to UN law where subject to invasion. So your UN defense does not hold water.

The US violated the charter of the UN when marching into Iraq w/o any authorization to do so. If the charter means nothing (which is what the US invasion essentially says), the UN directives mean even less. The only basis the UN has to demand certain compliance from a country is it's charter. The US trampled on that very charter. But you still want to sit there and complain about a government that disregarded resolutions that were based on that charter?

Thanks for playing. Try again.

[Chuckles 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 the UN when marching into Iraq w/o any authorization to do so. If the charter means nothing (which is what the US invasion essentially says), the UN directives mean even less. The only basis the UN has to demand certain compliance from a country is it's charter. The US trampled on that very charter. But you still want to sit there and complain about a government that disregarded resolutions that were based on that charter?

Thanks for playing. Try again.

Don't add things to my statement. Show me where I complained about a goverment that disregarded resolustions that were based on that charter ???

Mine was simply a comment with no opinion expressed about US goverment actions. Iraq was subject to invasion by UN Charter. End of story. What happened after the charter was broken or before I never commented on, therefore don't tell me my opinion, OK??

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Iraq was subject to invasion by UN Charter. End of story.

No it wasn't. And that's not a matter of opinion. The Charter regulates very clearely that the UN Security Council only can authorize the use of force. In the case of the 2003 Iraq invasion, no such authority was granted by the UN Security Council that I am aware of. Maybe you can tell me when the Security Council authorized the 2003 US led campaign against Iraq.

[Chuckles 0]

Iraq was subject to invasion by UN Charter. End of story.

No it wasn't. And that's not a matter of opinion. The Charter regulates very clearely that the UN Security Council only can authorize the use of force. In the case of the 2003 Iraq invasion, no such authority was granted by the UN Security Council that I am aware of. Maybe you can tell me when the Security Council authorized the 2003 US led campaign against Iraq.

The security council never did.

The UN resolution passed in November 2002 sent arms inspectors into Iraq to verify Iraq's disarmament, the final requirement before lifting sanctions. The resolution says there will be "serious consequences" if there is a "material breach" of the resolution. The resolution states that a finding of "material breach" requires both omissions or lies in Iraq's arms declaration and non-compliance with inspectors. Iraq opened itself up to 'serious consequences' as a country.

So you have 2 countries in the wrong. That was my statement and I'm sticking to it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Iraq was subject to invasion by UN Charter. End of story.

No it wasn't. And that's not a matter of opinion. The Charter regulates very clearely that the UN Security Council only can authorize the use of force. In the case of the 2003 Iraq invasion, no such authority was granted by the UN Security Council that I am aware of. Maybe you can tell me when the Security Council authorized the 2003 US led campaign against Iraq.

The security council never did.

Hence, the US led invasion was an illegal act of aggression.

The UN resolution passed in November 2002 sent arms inspectors into Iraq to verify Iraq's disarmament, the final requirement before lifting sanctions. The resolution says there will be "serious consequences" if there is a "material breach" of the resolution. The resolution states that a finding of "material breach" requires both omissions or lies in Iraq's arms declaration and non-compliance with inspectors. Iraq opened itself up to 'serious consequences' as a country.

Seious consequences that the Security Council would have to define. And, as you acknowledge yourself, it did not do that. The US wouldn't let it define the "serious consequences" as the US was pre-determined to invade. Let us also not forget why the UN weapons inspectors could not complete their assignment that began in 11/02: It was because the US admninistration told them Mid March 2003 to get out as we were going in. For no other reason.

So you have 2 countries in the wrong. That was my statement and I'm sticking to it.

I ain't no fan of Saddam or the Iraq under Saddam. But this crowd of idiotic Yahoos in the White House pulling a John Wayne on the word like that are far more dangerous to the world than Saddam could have ever been. And that's my statement and I am sticking to it!

[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.

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.

The U.S. invaded providing the terrorists the gun, but militant islam pulled the trigger. End of story.

The 'insurgency' is a result of extremist islam. I will put it in clearer terms.

CAUSE- Extremist doctrine stating that all non-believers, citizens of 'The Great Satan', or anyone that doesn't assimilate your line of thought should be brutally murdered/annihilated/beheaded/insert murder word here.

RESULT- "insurgents" murder civilians, reporters, government officials and their families.

The responsibility and cause lies with those who commit the atrocities. The U.S. invading Iraq is a proximate cause for what is happening.

The rabid doctrine being pumped out by extremist islamic leaders is the direct cause. \

Clear enough now?

[aussiewench 9]

[almaty 19]

like that smilie

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The U.S. invaded providing the terrorists the gun, but militant islam pulled the trigger. End of story.

BS. That's the most ridiculous BS I have heard in a long time. You still haven't gotten the memo that the AQ-Saddam link was nothing but a blatant lie put forth by the Bush White House to justify the invasion? Time for you to wake up, buddy.

[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.

The U.S. invaded providing the terrorists the gun, but militant islam pulled the trigger. End of story.

The 'insurgency' is a result of extremist islam. I will put it in clearer terms.

CAUSE- Extremist doctrine stating that all non-believers, citizens of 'The Great Satan', or anyone that doesn't assimilate your line of thought should be brutally murdered/annihilated/beheaded/insert murder word here.

RESULT- "insurgents" murder civilians, reporters, government officials and their families.

The responsibility and cause lies with those who commit the atrocities. The U.S. invading Iraq is a proximate cause for what is happening.

The rabid doctrine being pumped out by extremist islamic leaders is the direct cause. \

Clear enough now?

Not for me. The term 'insurgency' is used to describe the very many disparate militant groups (some but not all are linked to islamic extremism) who are choosing to fight the US and coalition forces. Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites - they are all involved in the fighting - each group has its own agenda here.

On that basis - the fact that the US invaded iraq with no clear plan (from government) to secure the country has led to a diabolical security situation that is still not 100% under control. A power vacuum almost always leads to sectarian violence. That was inevitable - military planners should have known, and probably did know, that removing Saddam Hussein would open the floodgates to Al Qaeda, and other militant groups. Yet we chose to go in anyway - against the advice that stopped Bush Sr from kicking out Saddam in the first place - because doing so would commit to the US armed forces to that country for many years.

Noone is justifying the actions taken by guerilla fighters, but neither can you blame all of the problems of Iraq post-war on militant islam. Certainly that is a significant problem in that part of the world - but its certainly legitimate to question the wisdom of invading a country with no clear plan to win the peace.

Edited May 30, 2006 by Fishdude

[ual777 0]

The U.S. invaded providing the terrorists the gun, but militant islam pulled the trigger. End of story.

BS. That's the most ridiculous BS I have heard in a long time. You still haven't gotten the memo that the AQ-Saddam link was nothing but a blatant lie put forth by the Bush White House to justify the invasion? Time for you to wake up, buddy.

I am not saying there was a connection. I am saying that militant islam is responsible for the 'insurgency' in Iraq. It is the cause. You need to get your head out of the sand and think for a minute.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The U.S. invaded providing the terrorists the gun, but militant islam pulled the trigger. End of story.

BS. That's the most ridiculous BS I have heard in a long time. You still haven't gotten the memo that the AQ-Saddam link was nothing but a blatant lie put forth by the Bush White House to justify the invasion? Time for you to wake up, buddy.

I am not saying there was a connection. I am saying that militant islam is responsible for the 'insurgency' in Iraq. It is the cause. You need to get your head out of the sand and think for a minute.

But militant Islam wasn't in Iraq before the US et al went in.... Saddam had those elements largely under control as his regime was predominantly a secular one.

The removal of Saddam's regime and failure to secure the country in a timely manner (the fault of the defence department for not deploying sufficient troops) created this security nightmare and created the conditions that allowed extremist groups to flourish.

An insurgency was inevitable when there are so many disparate groups and warlords vying for their piece of the pie.

Out of curiosity... are you claiming that every single group involved in the insurgency is based on religious fanaticism?

Edited May 30, 2006 by Fishdude