Ironworks Gaming Forum - Bush: Bring Em On!

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - Bush: Bring Em On! (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=75927)

An invite to attack U.S. troops or an expression of confidence in their ability or both?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in561567.shtml

Quote:

(CBS/AP) Three words directed by President Bush to fighters attacking Americans in Iraq have triggered attacks of a different kind — from those critical of the president's approach to foreign affairs.

Answering press questions on Wednesday about the violence in which 26 Americans have died since major combat in Iraq ended more than a month ago, the president vowed to find and punish "anybody who wants to harm American troops," and said the attacks would not weaken his resolve to restore peace and order in Iraq.

"There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on," Mr. Bush said.

At least, that's what he said according to the official White House transcript. But reporters say the phrase actually sounded like "bring 'em on."

Either way, the tone rubbed some Democrats and foreign commentators the wrong way.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., called the president's anguage "irresponsible and inciteful."

"I am shaking my head in disbelief," Lautenberg said. "When I served in the Army in Europe during World War II, I never heard any military commander — let alone the commander in chief — invite enemies to attack U.S. troops."

Britain's anti-war Guardian newspaper dubbed the statement a "gesture of presidential bravado." It did not help, in critics' eyes, that the president made the statement with a picture of Teddy Roosevelt on a rearing horse — a cowboy image some people overseas associate with the current president.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Mr. Bush's combative tone was not meant to invite attacks on Americans. "I think what the president was expressing there is his confidence in the men and women of the military to handle the military mission they still remain in the middle of," Fleischer said.

According to Lautenberg, one third of U.S. casualties in Iraq have occurred since Mr. Bush declared major combat over two months ago.

On Tuesday, assailants traveling in a vehicle in central Baghdad fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a U.S. military vehicle, wounding three soldiers. Another grenade slammed into a U.S. truck on a road south of Baghdad, injuring three soldiers, one of whom died at a field hospital overnight.

Mr. Bush expressed impatience with the criticism leveled at his administration in recent weeks.

"See, we've been there for, what — I mean, how many days?" the president said. "Frankly, it wasn't all that long ago that we started military operations. And we got rid of him, much faster than a lot of people thought."

The president often uses robust language when describing or addressing America's enemies. On several occasions this year he referred implicitly to the killings of al Qaeda operatives by saying that some had been arrested or "otherwise dealt with," often to knowing chuckles from friendly crowds.

Look, give the guy a break. He's from the south. You want to start a fight with someone from the south, it ain't hard to get a similar reaction. It is funny to watch the ignoramous Ari try to backpedal for him, though.

It is understandable bravado. And, I agree. While I think we should deal peacably and fairly with Iraq and its noble citizens, I nevertheless wish all those who would attack American soldiers a slow and painful death.

I would say the samething. On a one for one basis, our guys are as good as anyone. Anyone can use sneak attacks and ambush to their advantage when the soldiers are trying to avoid civilian slaughters. I do believe our President did tell us all well before the war started that it wouldprobably take a couple of years YEARS mind you not months days or weeks to get Iraq back on track.

I think it is the "bring 'em on" phrase that people are being critical about.

While no one disagrees with punishing those who try to upset the peace.
The "Bring em' on" statement sounds as if he wants people to attack American troops. He obviously does not have any close relatives over there that mean anything to him or he would not have said such a thing. Daring people to attack incites more people to do so.

Personally I saw his speech and I liked it up to the very last part. I believe he was getting a little emotional towards the end like he was going to cry.

He should have said something like "We prefer it if you did not attack coalition troops, but if you do we will use whatever means necessary to stop you. (Implying death)" That should have been the end of it. Bring 'em on means a whole different meaning.

So for all those who disagree "Bring 'em on" [img]graemlins/knightsmile.gif[/img]

Pritchke, in this case I think its a cultural misunderstanding. When I read it, I see a statment of bravado and courage. Stating to whomever that we are unafraid to meet their challenge and to take them out on the field of battle.

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
It is understandable bravado. And, I agree. While I think we should deal peacably and fairly with Iraq and its noble citizens, I nevertheless wish all those who would attack American soldiers a slow and painful death.

And vice versa?

Hmm not to make this spam I'll just say I've updated my profile. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Quote:

Originally posted by WillowIX:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
It is understandable bravado. And, I agree. While I think we should deal peacably and fairly with Iraq and its noble citizens, I nevertheless wish all those who would attack American soldiers a slow and painful death.

And vice versa?
[/QUOTE]Not at all. Why in the world would I wish that everyone suffering a slow and painful death would attack Americans?? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

You should just drop the TTD thing. It makes it seem as if you like me, and everyone here knows you don't. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Oh, and Thhhbbbbt. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Not at all. Why in the world would I wish that everyone suffering a slow and painful death would attack Americans?? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

You should just drop the TTD thing. It makes it seem as if you like me, and everyone here knows you don't. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Oh, and Thhhbbbbt. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Ahh you cheeky sod! :D You know very well what I meant and I would honestly like an answer to it. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'm not out to make a comment on that answer I would just like to know.

Ahh Timber, everyone here knows how fond I am of you. How else could I explain those 10 feet squared posters I have hanging on the wall? [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D

Why should I lay of Bush? This is another example from of a long line of "un-statesmen like conduct" that I hope the voters eject him from tha game for in 2004. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Shoot, Clinton was from the south, I'm from the south, I know alot of soft-spoken articulate southerns who wouldn't use such a debasing catch phrase like "Bring em on"

It is well known that Saddam watch's CNN and othe r western news casts, so this kind of bravado could attract more fierce resistance and may send a message to the Iraqi on the fence that we are looking for as fight, instead of looking to build peace.

Actually, Willow, I'm not 100% certain as to what you mean. Is it "Every American soldier attacking Iraqis should have a slow and painful death?" ?? Seriously, that's the closest I can make your meaning out to be.

To answer that, assuming it's what you meant, if a soldier *out of malice* attacked an innocent civilian, yes I would wish them ill. However, soldiers mistakenly attacking civilians during a very hectic confusing situation are a different story. Attacks are coming often over there, and I could imagine a situation where soldiers may think they were being attacked when in fact that would not be the case. That's a different instance.

(Hope I took your meaning correctly)