'Bring it On'. UN Tragedy

[Euro-Aussie]

I guess George Bush had his wish in telling his opponents in Iraq to 'bring it on'.  

How absolutely sad that this bravado was countered by a dozen dead and scores injured.

[nikki m]

Pardon me for sounding overly sensetive BUT if this was due to HIS comments wouldn't an AMERICAN base been the recipient of such ire?  Bring it on is an American way of saying "just try to make me".  
  We Americans say things differently than others as in a kiss is a kiss not a snog, a fanny is a polite way to say "backside" not a womans vag area and spunk refers to ones spirit, fiestyness and jutzpa not what others refer to spunk as.  
 If we had done nothing had continued to look the other way as Iraq ignored UNITED NATIONS mandates the world would have been just as angry with us over that as well.  It's frustrating because "we are damned if we do damned if we don't" it feels to me sometimes.  

[Dr Opinion]

Nope... this is not a semantic issue.

"Bring it on" means simply, "I don't think you're capable of carrying out your threat, so show me".

This is precisely what the terrorists have done.

I think we need to go back to first principles here. There was a debate through most of the Western world as to whether GWII was being fought to get rid of WMD, or get free oil. Everyone was quite clear at that time that there were two possibilities.

We know now that WMD had nothing to do with it: it was a lie.

Unless we want to go back and hash out all that again, I'd say quite obviously we're faced with the fact that the US is only in Iraq for Oil-exploitation reasons.

So of course there'll be soldiers and foreign civvies dying... the US force there is not stationed in sufficient strength to secure most of the zones it "controls".

The troops are there for one reason and one reason only: protect the engineers getting the oil flowing, and keep the oil flowing. Period.

[Panama Hat]

As Dr. O says, it is not an issue of semantics.  I know Euro-Aussie and he's been working for US companies for over ten years, parlance is not the problem.  

The two most prolific 'flaunters' and 'veto-ers' (shocking English, I know) of UN resolutions are the US and Israel - does that tell you that the US only acts when it is in their interest?  Surely!

I'm sure you mean chutzpah.  

Anyway, oil is the key issue here, and the US governments greed to secure as much of it as possible to feed its military-industrial complex - please look at the background of many high-level politicians currently in power.  

The last US president to be so full of himself was Ronald Reagan and witness particularly his 'America's' policy.  Walking over dead bodies to guarantee adherence to US policy in 'his longitudes'.  

'Bring it on' means exactly what it says.  Well, the terrorists (for others freedom fighters*) did with the UN building, and are continuously doing it and the sad result is lots of bodybags being sent back to the US.  

What did Michael Moore say at the Oscars:
         "Shame on you, Mr. President"  

*  A well known saying, joke, goes something along the lines of:
Q: What's the difference between a terrorist and a head of state?
A: About 10 years

[T2K]

1.  The "bring it on" statement was made by the President of the US.  So, how does an attack on the UN equal a response to this statement?

2.  At a cost of billions of dollars per month to occupy and rebuild Iraq, how exactly is the oil free?

[Snaffled]

I'm not sure that the two most prolific flaunters of UN resolutions are the US & Israel.  Anyone got the documentation to back this up?  
I'm talking about since when the UN was created.  Thanks.

[Joseph27]

You illegally invade a country after spending a decade starving its people and then tell any discenters to bring it on. Doesnt matter who they are - the US is the face of the occupation, whilst the UN a facade.  The bombing was simply a message to everyone.  This will not abate

I wrote earlier that the Americans cannot win this war – they won the initial battle for sure – but the people are not celebrating their ‘liberation’.  Get ready for the long run US - this is going to be a messy messy affair and will ultimately be a Vietnam.  No exit strategy, a vunerable mid east, and plenty of dead America troops.   When will Americans realise you cant run the world because even though much of the world may love your products they detest your double standards.  

Make foreign policy choices more domestically accountable, consider the long term ramifications of your countries actions and only through consensus can long term change truly be affected.

The US is a great country with great people but just many bad leaders and corporations that for some strange reason have all the rights and freedoms of an individual without any of the limitations that individuals inevitably face. These are the issue that the US should be examining and not the rebuilding of an Iraq or Afghanistan that they should never they destroyed.  

[Imagine]

So if the president would have said something like: "Kiss my ass" or "suck my d**k" all Americans have to be prepared to get sexually molested with their pants on their ankles?

In other words, if USA tomorrow says: "Please do not bomb any buildings anymore", all terrorist actuvity will stop because that's what USA asked for?

[Joseph27]

"Please do not bomb any buildings anymore"???

A simple message for sure - but I believe its workable.  By throwing more petrol on the fire that GWB has already created - all he does is make more people willing to step up to the mantle and matyr themselves.  

Lets start to defuse the situation - bring us back from constant war.  The bombers are parascites and dont represent anyones interest but their own.  They are not Muslims but they speak out to the frustrations felt with many Muslims.

As Wimar wrote in the today newspaper today - "Nothing much has happened in the Sept 11 case.  The US just throws its attention from one topic to the other whilse causing the international world to throw suspiciion on Islamic society as a whole.  Americans have forgotten about OBL. In the battle of public opinion,, they have traded their analysis for diatribes.

We must root out these parascites who kill and mame but we must also address the problems that allow these murderers to gain an audience.  

Imagine - you always ask me to provide solution - well there's a start for you.  

[Manc Man]

Here's what happened.

Following a quick but pleasant meeting all truck bombers in Iraq agreed to cease all war related activities and go on a peaceful seaside picnic.

They loaded the truck up with picnic baskets full of food, drink and flowery blankets to sit on, renounced violence for ever and set off for the coast.

As they were reversing out of the drive way they heard GW announce "Bring It On" and collectively exclaimed "Ooooo..You cheeky bastard George".

They stopped the truck, tossed out the picnic goodies, loaded up with nitrate again and headed straight for the UN Building.

This is how GWs pronouncement to "Bring it on" is directly responsible for the UN Builidng bombing.

Now just how plausible does that sound?

Gimme a break, just when I thought the anti war whining couldn't get any dumber...

mm

[Panama Hat]

T2K - Technically the US is the occupying power and therefore responsible for the saftey and well-being of the citizens of the occupied population and anyone else in the country.  

Any attack on Iraqi's and non-Iragi's is, therefore, an attack on the US.  

Not my creation, but the duties of an occupying force.  

[This message has been edited by Panama Hat (edited 21-08-2003).]

[Panama Hat]

Imagine, you really are a simpleton.  Waving a red flag in front of a bull is not going to placate it, quite to the contrary.  

There has been no overwhelming support for the american invasion, ousting of the government and occupation of the country.  Why the people are not cheering the demise of this despot is beyond me, however.  

It was a gross miscalculation on the part of the secret service and dissident groups.  

Will the US do what they are doing in Afghanistan and leave a huge mess, economically, socially and politically?  
I believe NATO troops are now the primary force in that country - although what Afghanistan has to do with NATO (North ATLANTIC Treaty Organisation), I don't know.  

Manc Man - where does it say that GWB's words are directly responsible for the bombing?  The post was made to show how farcical his words were.  

Snaffled, try the following links for a list of US vetoes since 1972 alone:  http://dupagepeace.home.att.net/usvetoes.html   and  http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=43361&group=webcast  

An interestin afterthought is that there is only one president since 1945 who has not sent US soldiers into battle:  Jimmy Carter

[This message has been edited by Panama Hat (edited 21-08-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Panama Hat (edited 22-08-2003).]

[rolling ball]

Well lets think of it this way, what if he said "We will not be deterred of reconstructing Iraq, even with obstacles such as Insurgent attacks on our troops." will there be as many attacks in a week than if he said "Bring it on..." or "I can handle as many attacks as you can throw, try me..."

Basically by saying "Bring it on". GWB is challenging insurgents to try their best. If people are challenged without any worse consequence, they will either just ignore it or take the challenge. If they take the challenge, then you'll see more attacks.

The sad part is that the army, who had no say on whether they should go to war or not, were sent there by GWB and GWB said "bring it on" and the army had to deal with the consequence of it. He should try being in their boots for a day or two. Make that a month or year.

[Dr Opinion]

> "....The "bring it on" statement was made by the President of the US. So, how does an attack on the UN equal a response to this statement?..."

Duh? It was obviously a serious blow to US claims that they are capable of "controling" areas.

> "....At a cost of billions of dollars per month to occupy and rebuild Iraq, how exactly is the oil free?..."

Duh? The cost is *taxpayers* money. To a criminal like Bush, taxes are "free". He jsut has to lie to Congress, and they pay up. He executes a business plan that provides cheap oil for his Corporate Sponsors. These MI goons will "pay" for the Oil at a miniscule fraction of the actual cost in terms of damage to the general US economy, taxes and lives. Not "free", but darn close.  

[rolling ball]

Amazing, I just realised that I haven't seen Antoine posting replies in a few of the recent threads. I wonder if he's sick or something?