Bush vows firm response to Iranian military actions

Politics International Politics
1

[quote]WASHINGTON (AP) – Deeply distrustful of Iran, President Bush said Monday “we will respond firmly” if Tehran escalates its military actions in Iraq and threatens American forces or Iraqi citizens.

Bush’s warning was the latest move in a bitter and more public standoff between the United States and Iran. [b]The White House expressed skepticism about Iran’s plans to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq. The United States has accused Iran of supporting terrorism in Iraq and supplying weapons to kill American forces.

“If Iran escalates its military actions in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and - or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly,” Bush said in an interview with National Public Radio.[/b]

The president’s comments reinforced earlier statements from the White House. (Watch how Washington is trying to curb Iran’s growing influence )

“If Iran wants to quit playing a destructive role in the affairs of Iraq and wants to play a constructive role, we would certainly welcome that,” National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. But, he said, “We’ve seen little evidence to date (of constructive activities) and frankly all we have seen is evidence to the contrary.”

Sharply at odds over Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program, Washington and Tehran are arguing increasingly about Iraq. American troops in Iraq have been authorized to kill or capture Iranian agents deemed to be a threat. “If you’re in Iraq and trying to kill our troops, then you should consider yourself a target,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said last week.

Ambassador: Iran stepping up efforts in Iraq

Iran’s plans in Iraq were outlined by Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qumi in an interview with The New York Times. He said Iran was prepared to offer Iraqi government forces training, equipment and advisers for what he called “the security fight,” the newspaper reported. He said that in the economic area, Iran was ready to assume major responsibility for the reconstruction of Iraq.

“We have experience of reconstruction after war,” the ambassador said, referring to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. “We are ready to transfer this experience in terms of reconstruction to the Iraqis.”

Johndroe said the Bush administration was looking at what the ambassador had to say.
The White House says there has been growing evidence over the last several months that Iran is supporting terrorists inside Iraq and is a major supplier of bombs and other weapons used to target U.S. forces. In recent weeks, U.S. forces have detained a number of Iranian agents in Iraq.

“It makes sense that if somebody is trying to harm our troops or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them,” Bush said on Friday.[/quote]

cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/29/ … index.html

I’m surprised at this. I mean, aren’t the Iranians too busy enriching uranium for purely peaceful purposes and rescuing cute little rabbits from the cold to send its bloodthirsty Shia death squads to Iraq to kill infidels? I feel so confused. Does anyone know what’s going on?

2

Just do it. I’m sick of all this, “Don’t do that, really, stop it,I’m tellin ya, do not do that, stop it man, stop.”

Howzabout just blindsiding them?

Just ONCE I wanna hear Bush say, “Homey don’t play dat!”

What would Ronnie do?

3

Ask for the other side to “Tear down this wall”…after his nap and jelly bean snack of course.

4

[quote=“jdsmith”]What would Ronnie do?[/quote]Have a nap before consulting his astrologer? :wink:
Pull the troops out of Beirut?
Send Olie North to ask the Iranians to return the weaponry?
Bomb Qum?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Iranians were setting up shop and talking about opening a bank.[quote=“NYT”] Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad outlined an ambitious plan on Sunday to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq — including an Iranian national bank branch in the heart of the capital — just as the Bush administration has been warning the Iranians to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs.

Iran’s plan, as outlined by the ambassador, carries the potential to bring Iran into further conflict here with the United States, which has detained a number of Iranian operatives in recent weeks and says it has proof of Iranian complicity in attacks on American and Iraqi forces.

The ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, said Iran was prepared to offer Iraq government forces training, equipment and advisers for what he called “the security fight.” In the economic area, Mr. Qumi said, Iran was ready to assume major responsibility for Iraq reconstruction, an area of failure on the part of the United States since American-led forces overthrew Saddam Hussein nearly four years ago.

“We have experience of reconstruction after war,” Mr. Qumi said, referring to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. “We are ready to transfer this experience in terms of reconstruction to the Iraqis.”
[…]
In a surprise announcement, Mr. Qumi said Iran would soon open a national bank in Iraq, in effect creating a new Iranian financial institution right under the Americans’ noses. A senior Iraqi banking official, Hussein al-Uzri, confirmed that Iran had received a license to open the bank, which he said would apparently be the first “wholly owned subsidiary bank” of a foreign country in Iraq.

“This will enhance trade between the two countries,” Mr. Uzri said.

Mr. Qumi said the bank was just the first of what he said would be several in Iraq — an agricultural bank and three private banks also intend to open branches. Other elements of new economic cooperation, he said, include plans for Iranian shipments of kerosene and electricity to Iraq and a new agricultural cooperative involving both countries.
[…]
As the interview was breaking up, Mr. Qumi made one last stab at the Americans. If Iran is allowed to undertake reconstruction activities in Iraq, he said, all international construction companies would be welcome. “Urge the American companies to come here,” he said.[/quote]Who’s more dangerous, the “military advisers”, or whatever they’re being called, or the bankers and merchants?

5

Setting up a bank is cool; sending “military advisors” …hmm, like the ones in Lebanon? Nah

6

[quote=“jdsmith”]Just do it. I’m sick of all this, “Don’t do that, really, stop it,I’m tellin ya, do not do that, stop it man, stop.”

Howzabout just blindsiding them?

Just ONCE I wanna hear Bush say, “Homey don’t play dat!”

What would Ronnie do?[/quote]

Last time he did something like you describe he said, “Bring 'em on.” Look where that got us. If you want to talk tough you can’t simply back it up with incompetence.

7

I believe that Saddam and his cronies/generals are convinced.

8

I believe that Saddam and his cronies/generals are convinced.[/quote]

I recall Bush said “Bring it on” after the intial invasion when there was this mention of an insurgency and since that time the U.S. has been knocked around like a punch-drunk boxer.

9

I love trying to decipher the “logic” of this forum’s leftists.

I recall Bush said "Bring it on" after the intial invasion when there was this mention of an insurgency and since that time the U.S. has been knocked around like a punch-drunk boxer.

Okay… So, are we to conclude any of the following:

  1. The Iraqi insurgents were moved to act only because of Bush’s statement.
  2. The Iraqi insurgency was made worse by this statement.
  3. The Iraqi insurgency that has knocked the US military around is a good thing because it showed Bush he wasn’t boss and taught him a lesson thereby improving US policy in Iraq or within the region.
  4. The average Iraqis are in any way benefiting from the insurgency.

Please do share what your “feelings” on this subject are. I am in the mood for a hearty laugh.

10

Laugh it up, fuzz ball.[quote=“fred smith”]I love trying to decipher the “logic” of this forum’s leftists.

I recall Bush said "Bring it on" after the intial invasion when there was this mention of an insurgency and since that time the U.S. has been knocked around like a punch-drunk boxer.

Okay… So, are we to conclude any of the following:

  1. The Iraqi insurgents were moved to act only because of Bush’s statement.
    2. The Iraqi insurgency was made worse by this statement.
  2. The Iraqi insurgency that has knocked the US military around is a good thing because it showed Bush he wasn’t boss and taught him a lesson thereby improving US policy in Iraq or within the region.
  3. The average Iraqis are in any way benefiting from the insurgency.

Please do share what your “feelings” on this subject are. I am in the mood for a hearty laugh.[/quote]

Now, as I believe Bush here alludes to, and elsewhere suggests that his rhetoric may have inflamed passions and encouraged the enemy–aka “bad language”–I’m going to enjoy a good hearty chuckle.

ahem

hahahahaha!!!

Nah, didn’t work for me. Just not nasty enough, I suppose. :unamused:

11

Supply the link and whole quote please. Does anyone think that the sole, main or even one of the major reasons for the insurgency are Bush’s remark to “bring it on?” Anyone? Anyone at all?

12

Sure. Just hang on, a sec.
And no, of course not, silly.

Edit: here you go.
Now, I read this last week, and don’t remember where. But I found the quote again here, which is where I quoted it from. At your request, I tracked it down at the source, here.

[quote]PELLEY: You mention mistakes having been made in your speech. What mistakes are you talking about?

BUSH: You know, we’ve been through this before. Abu Ghraib was a mistake. Using bad language like, you know, “bring them on” was a mistake. I think history is gonna look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better. No question about it.

PELLEY: The troop levels . . .

BUSH: Could have been a mistake.

PELLEY: Could have been a mistake?

BUSH: Yeah. [General] John Abizaid, one of the planners, said in front of Congress, you know, he thought we might have needed more troops. My focus is on how to succeed. And the reason I brought up the mistakes is, one, that’s the job of the commander-in-chief, and, two, I don’t want people blaming our military. We got a bunch of good military people out there doing what we’ve asked them to do. And the temptation is gonna find scapegoats. Well, if the people want a scapegoat, they got one right here in me 'cause it’s my decisions.
[/quote]

The reference to mistakes admitted to in the speech points back here:

Sorry, I can’t find the additional references; at the moment I’m actually busy. :astonished:

13

Even by your diarrhea-loose definitions, I think we have now exhausted the “sec.” Got anything?

14

During the first major battle of the Texas Revolution, the Battle of Gonzales, the Mexicans tried to take back from the Americans a small cannon they had lent them to fight hostile Native Americans. At the time the American colonists were all citizens of Mexico by declaration of the Constitution of 1824, and at first were simply ordered to return the cannon. The colonists sent a message to the Mexican General de Cos: Come and get it.

The Mexican forces were routed and the Americans victorious. This is a familiar story to every schoolchild in Texas. Perhaps Bush was thinking about the Battle of Gonzales when he said “bring it on” to the Sunni insurgents? Who knows.

15

I doubt it. Just a bit of schadenfreude for the Code Pink crowd, you know?

16

[quote=“gao_bo_han”]During the first major battle of the Texas Revolution, the Battle of Gonzales, the Mexicans tried to take back from the Americans a small cannon they had lent them to fight hostile Native Americans. At the time the American colonists were all citizens of Mexico by declaration of the Constitution of 1824, and at first were simply ordered to return the cannon. The colonists sent a message to the Mexican General de Cos: Come and get it.

The Mexican forces were routed and the Americans victorious. This is a familiar story to every schoolchild in Texas. Perhaps Bush was thinking about the Battle of Gonzales when he said “bring it on” to the Sunni insurgents? Who knows.[/quote]

Who knows what he as trying to say. Seems a silly thing to say regardless of the circumstances if you’re facing an insurgency.

Very generous of him to admit his errors…“could have been a mistake”

17

The only hope I have is that Bush was somehow serious about tying the terrorist wannabes down in a ready made shithole and keeping the fight out of America, because other than that. it has been nothing short of another humiliating disaster for the US. “Bring it on” is a mere quip in this freaky and embarrassing panto.

HG

18

If you read the gushing newspaper accounts, perhaps, but, the simple fact remains that Iraq is under our strategic if not effective control. That is a first step. When we want to get serious about reducing the levels of noxious interference both domestically in Iraq and outside the country, then we might be able to move forward to achieving effective control. Time to stop worrying about media accounts of “abuse” and “blown up wedding parties” and go after these thugs. What? The media is suddenly going to turn against our cause? Europeans and Lefties will suddenly see that the insurgents are killing the very innocent women and children that they claim to care about, repent and then support the effort to bring peace and stability to Iraq? Puhleeze… Code Pink. Protest. Cindy Sheehan. Bush lied. Troops died. How can you argue with people whose very medium consists of messages of two words or less? And Bush is the dumb one? hahah

19

Now how the fuck did we get to Cindy Sheehan? That’s some yank bullshit I just don’t understand. Her son died in you war, by the way, Freak!

HG

20

[quote=“fred smith”]I love trying to decipher the “logic” of this forum’s leftists.

I recall Bush said "Bring it on" after the intial invasion when there was this mention of an insurgency and since that time the U.S. has been knocked around like a punch-drunk boxer.

Okay… So, are we to conclude any of the following:

  1. The Iraqi insurgents were moved to act only because of Bush’s statement.
  2. The Iraqi insurgency was made worse by this statement.
  3. The Iraqi insurgency that has knocked the US military around is a good thing because it showed Bush he wasn’t boss and taught him a lesson thereby improving US policy in Iraq or within the region.
  4. The average Iraqis are in any way benefiting from the insurgency.

Please do share what your “feelings” on this subject are. I am in the mood for a hearty laugh.[/quote]

Bush’s quip had nothing to do with the existence of the insurgency or its effectiveness. The U.S.'s incomptence is what has helped to fuel the insurgency and subsequently led to this civil war. If Bush wanted to talk tough, he should have been able to back up his comments and quickly put down the insurgency otherwise he at best he has been left looking like a fool and at worst he has trivialized the loss of life that inevitably came with fighting.

And you can keep your Ad Hominem attacks they add nothing to the debate.