It is time for Bush
 

...to shit or get off of the pot. I saw a report from Ollie North who is with the troops in Kuwaite. He said the sand storms are becoming more frequent and the troops, as well as the equiptment are taking a beating. It has also been reported that the temperatures are already hitting 120 degrees. He said the field Commanders and the troops want to go and get this over with so that they can return home.

The fighting spirit and equiptment cannot wait much longer, and in fact the optimum season for fighting a war in that part of the world is already over and conditions will just continue to grow worse. Fucking politicians way to frequently fuck over the troops with the fucking political games they play. It happened big time during the Korean conflict and during the Vietnam conflict and has already happened again in this conflict in the sense that they let the optimum season for invading Iraq come and go.

Bush has fumbled the political football so badly in his attempt for UN aprroval I hope people remember come re-election time. It is being reported that Canada and Mexico may not be on board. When the President cannot even convince our closest neighbors that President pretty much becomes a disgrace to the Nation. It displays a total lack of diplomatic skill in my opinion. The USA did not need (and certainly with hindsight should never have sought UN approval) approval from the UN as it already had UN approval in previous resolutions and could have legitimately enforced the terms of the cease fire, agreed to by Iraq in 1991.

I agree. This bullshit is just keeping our troops on pins and needles, and distracting them.

Right now, it seems like we're just trying to "scare" them into complying. We're releasing all these news photos of some new "super bombs" we're testing, etc. Psychological warfare seems to be the goal of the administration at this point.

He should have either gone ahead and invaded Iraq without even seeking UN approval, or let it be known he was going to wait for full authorization from the Security Council. He's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

When Rumsfeld goes on TV and says: "To the extent that (the British) are able to participate, in the event that the president decides to use force, that would obviously be welcomed," Rumsfeld said. "To the extent they're not, there are workarounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase of it."

Referring to your major allied partner as a "workaround" is very bad politics, what an arrogant dipshit. I've been expecting him to open his mouth a little too wide at some point.

This can't a be positive impact on the world. Are Americans totally OK with having to go at it alone if they had to? I mean yeah I know the US will get support from England, Spain & Australia, but comments made by your secretary, don't sit very good with your allies...

I kind of agree. Although I think there's little justification for this war, President Bush is making things worse.

If he is going to have his war with or without UN security counsul approval (which clearly he is) he should just get it over with.

Here's something I don't understand. Why are we dancing with the UN about getting votes and giving speeches about what we 'know' about Iraq, but then Bush has stated he doesn't need UN approval to go into Iraq. This doesn't make sense to me. That's like going to a car dealership to steal a car, but talking to a loan officer about seeing if you qualify for financing first.

It is a "wonderment", isn't it.

My personal opinion is that Bush should announce today that we are going to drop this 18th resolution idea and just get on with it. We as a nation have already been embarrassed by this political fumbling and do not need to suffer even further embarrassment.

Yeah, diplomatic efforts "ON THE PHONE?!?!"

Come on..

People were actually giving signs that they needed to talk in person and he used the phone all the time.. :1orglaugh

It's time for Bush to be a good little bitch and do what the rest of the world tells him.

Heel boy... sit!

Americans are like rich spoiled kids - hell - they ARE rich spoiled kids. Just ignore them or spank them - attention whores

The US is the most powerful country in the world, both economically, industrially and military.

Pity you got idiots at the helm.

Ground troops sitting in the hot desert getting bored. Hmmm. They'll still be doing that when Iraqi divisions are getting bombed, frightened, sleep-deprived, and killed by B2s, B52s, Apaches, and Tomahawks.

so you keep telling yourself - the funny thing is that its almost only the americans that think that.

China will kick your ass

Charly isn't American, man.

That almost sounded like something Bush would say. The fact is; Americans will also be coming home in coffins. History shows that Americans died the first time they were in that region... I'm sure both sides learnt a lot about their enemy, I don't doubt every country going there to attack, will be facing many casualties.

I'll use a sporting analogy, we all know how Americans love their sports. You're playing on their court, fighting a team that has had over a decade to practice, a team that has been practicing with your balls. America is a lot more advanced with technology, but I'd have to think that Iraq has just as much skill with hand-to-hand combat.

Really don't think very much hand-to-hand combat will be going on.:Graucho

Well DUH! What the fuck would you want to have cake if you can't eat? Take it out to the movies or something?

Juggernaut,

"Almost"? Feeling a little timid today?

Yes, people die in war. Thanks for the revelation. Soldiers will die.

What does your statement have to do with the observation that Iraqi ground troops will be getting bombed while US and British ones are still in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? America and Britain ALREADY have air superiority over 2/3 of Iraq and the war has not yet even begun. Iraqis fire at British and American planes every day and never hit anything. You can read the official news from Baghdad on the "Evil American planes" if you wish for the numbers.

Before Gulf War I, many people were debating the same thing. One of the US cabinet members at the time compared Schwarzkopf to Civil War General McClellan saying he should be attacking sooner The press at the time also kept asking what was taking so long. What happened? 60,000 Iraqi surrenders after four days of ground war, three "elite" Republican Guard units decimated, and the rest high-tailing it out of there. Remember Colin Powell's argument at the time that we should stop the war immediately. He said it wouldn't be "chivalrous" for us to continue destroying them under the conditions.

As a result of allowing the optimum season to pass there will be a toll in American lives, because of equipment failure, and heat stroke, let alone the additional misery of it all. The heat there is almost unbearable and I do not know if you have experienced the misery of a sand storm.

I'm hardly timid, just getting bored of the American patriotism towards an idiotic Presidency. I simply don't want for there to be a war. I have a personal stake in it with relatives that have been called to war through the National Guard.

Air superiority? yeah the no-fly zone has been in effect for over 10 years. It's not as if Iraqi planes are flying in that area, is it? Of course the American and British fighter jets have air superiority, they're the only ones flying in that air space.

I don't doubt the "allied" forces will prevail, that isn't the argument here... but if Sadaam is such a small threat, why 200,000+ troops? I've heard plenty of reports that state this amount of military presence is far more than was estimated to "get the job done".

I don't care for the attacking sooner argument, it's the why now and not before argument that is bothering me... one month or even one year. It's been 12 years for God's sake. And Iraq has not attacked the US during that time, apart from being an enemy.

Sadaam hasn't attacked America or Britain or launched any missile from his country because he couldn't. He can't reach any territorial borders of any allied states apart from Turkey. They haven't been bombarded with Sadaam's potential "wrath", because he has none.

So you could argue that because he's an enemy, time could put him in a position that would allow him to attack, right? - OK, show the proof that he has a capability to attack any of us and I'll sign up tomorrow to take him out... and even so, Russia was an enemy for 50 years, why did nothing happen there? because there was no ulterior motive, that's why.

"Offers salvation for terrorists" - A hint, there are more terrorist groups in America per capita than there are any place else in the world. Bush should aim at what's local and defeat that; way before attacking anything overseas.

America, Britain, Australia, Spain and whoever else is over there at the moment, shouldn't be there. This is a badly played war. Under these circumstances the majority of the worlds people (including Americans), don't agree with this war. Look at any justified poll.

There is nothing "chivalrous" ever; about war, any war. Get over this whole patriotic act, not only is it growing tiresome, but it's also showing you up as an imbecile every time you defend your insolent President.

Don't worry, I know John Howard is in the same boat, but he's only following America to defend economic interests... it was that whole "you're either with us or against us speech Bush gave" - I'm not patriotic to my Prime Minister because he doesn't speak for me.

The vote might be delayed until next week.

I don't know either. I used to live in Southwest Arizona. We called them dust storms. Is there a difference? "Sandstorm" sounds scarier.

i saw a tv program and they reckon it was nothing to do with being chivalrous, it was a political descision taken by bush. he didn't want to take away all of sadams military power because bush didn't want the arabs in the south (who were pro iranian and fanatical muslims) to sieze power. the program said this was kept from the US public as it would have been very unpopular.

The concept of chivalry was born in war. The concept lives on in war. Read some military history of the Middle Ages.

Yeah, I know the routine. Those that agree with you are wise, intelligent, knowledgeable and arrived at their conclusions independently while those that disagree with you are brainwashed,
unknowledgeable, "imbeciles", and victims of propaganda.

Please look up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary when you are done researching "chivalry".

Why I'm even responding...

Chivalry comes from empathy, originating from war. You would not need to undertake war for empathy to be in place. Chivalry is ancient. It is more commonly noted these days through the acts one does to a partner.

This doesn't and won't apply to the war in Iraq, sorry.

I don't want you to agree with me, you incessant fuck. I want for you to open your own eyes and make an informed opinion about the real truth, yourself. What comes from your text, is anything but that.

You have a right as an active participant in society to go against those that put you in harm. I believe, that the governments I have mentioned, are doing things that are not in favor of my best interest.

Long after Bush and Howard are gone, I'll still be in fear of "terrorism", because of their actions for war, not against it.

You're contradicting yourself. You first said that there is nothing chivalrous about war, ANY war, ever. Now you are explaining the link between chivalry and war.

Funny. You are right, everyone that disagrees with you is wrong and not worth talking to. Must be pretty difficult to learn anything while only talking to people that agree with you. Looking for "yes men"?

Calm down. You'll make more sense if you don't feel hot-headed. ;-)

So I was right about you. You think that those who disagree with you are making their decisions with their eyes closed and are "imbeciles". It's amusing that right after I say that, you take the time to prove me right.

Actually, no. I'm looking to have an informed understanding about things I don't already know about. That being done through intelligent dialogue. It would seem that you find it more important to disect specific words while ignoring the topic at hand.

You seem anal. You can believe what you like, you're allowed to do so, for the rest of your life. But when the time comes, that your Presidency is proven wrong, you will feel the pain of what it is like to follow an unjust cause.

I've grown tired of watching your redundant comments about why we should go to war. If it's so important for you to go to war, do it.

You're not looking to have an "informed understanding". You misunderstood the meaning of a word and therefore the context of what I was saying. Once you realized that, you attempted to backtrack and show an ambiguous relationship between the two to save face instead of actually continuing the conversation. Now you can call me "anal" for pointing that out and "imbecile" for disagreeing with you.

How can you possibly say you want to "have an informed understanding about things you don't already know about" when you categorically label everyone that disagrees with you an "imbecile", "uninformed", "having their eyes closed", not knowing what the "real truth " is, and overly "patriotic"?

Care to list them?

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/search.php

What exactly are you referring to? What is Bush wrong about? Maybe we'll even agree ;-)

Not having been in an Arizona "dust storm" and having been in a "sand storm" I cannot compare the two. If your experience with a "dust storm" was that of abject suffocating misery then the two are quiet similar.