# Bush: World must stand united against terrorism



## jordan (Sep 23, 2008)

Tell 'em like it is G. Dub...!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush



> UNITED NATIONS - President Bush, who once expressed disdain for the United Nations, said Tuesday that multinational organizations are now "needed more urgently than ever" to combat terrorists and extremists who are threatening world order.
> 
> In his eighth and final speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Bush said the international community must stand firm against the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran. He said that despite past disagreements over the U.S.-led war in Iraq, members of the U.N. must unite to help the struggling democracy succeed. And he scolded Russia for invading neighboring Georgia, calling it a violation of the U.N. charter.
> 
> ...


----------



## pardus (Sep 23, 2008)

Wouldn't be nice if they actually took that advice...


----------



## Gypsy (Sep 23, 2008)

Yes it would.



> *Bush said that instead of issuing statements and resolutions after terrorist attacks, the U.N. and such organizations must work closely to prevent violence. *Every nation has responsibilities to prevent its territory from being used for terrorist, drug trafficking and nuclear proliferation, he said.



Amen.


----------



## Simmerin' SigO (Sep 23, 2008)

> Bush, *who ordered the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq without the U.N.'s blessing,*..."



Um...i don't think this is true...


----------



## HoosierAnnie (Sep 23, 2008)

"Bush, who ordered the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq without the U.N.'s blessing," (article)

While technically, since he is CIC, you might be able to say this. . .

"Um...i don't think this is true... " (Simmerin Sigo)

I tend to agree with Sigo here. It is actually the Congress who authorizes the use of US troops, isn't it?

I can't get multi-quotes to work for some reason


----------



## jordan (Sep 24, 2008)

GW is the man.


----------



## Grey (Sep 26, 2008)

Agreed


----------



## Cecil (Oct 3, 2008)

God Bless good ole "W"


----------



## MsKitty (Oct 3, 2008)

His "overall" rating is down, but I wonder if you took a military ONLY survey, what his numbers would be....and that's from people that have been there done that!

Time for a survey?

....and the survey says.......


----------



## Cecil (Oct 3, 2008)

Regardless of the honorable and purpose driven decisions he has had the courage and integrity to stand-by faithfully.... there will always be those arm-chair quarterbacks that will gripe and complain.

W is a good man, and a great leader... IMHO.


----------



## MsKitty (Oct 3, 2008)

I still think he was the RIGHT leader to handle our 9/11 tragic event...he had the balls to stand up and basically say "let's deal with this"....I can't even imagine, nor wish to, think about how Special K (Kerry) and the Boy Wonder would have dealt with what our country had hit us.   MY opinion only.


----------



## elle (Oct 4, 2008)

MsKitty said:


> *I still think he was the RIGHT leader to handle our 9/11 tragic event...he had the balls to stand up and basically say "let's deal with this"...*.I can't even imagine, nor wish to, think about how Special K (Kerry) and the Boy Wonder would have dealt with what our country had hit us.   MY opinion only.




Agreed, but it would have been Al Gore at the time.


----------



## MsKitty (Oct 4, 2008)

elle said:


> Agreed, but it would have been Al Gore at the time.



Oops...another one of my moments.  I'm having a lot of them lately...I think it's time for a vacation!!!


----------



## TheGunDoctor (Oct 11, 2008)

Cecil said:


> Regardless of the honorable and purpose driven decisions he has had the courage and integrity to stand-by faithfully.... there will always be those arm-chair quarterbacks that will gripe and complain.
> 
> W is a good man, and a great leader... IMHO.



Speaking as a non arm-chair quarterback, I completely disagree about his leadership skill and decision-making ability. I am also a US paratrooper and will carry out my mission with motivation regardless of my personal opinions. 

Whether he's a good man or not makes no difference to me. Fact remains that he's the man in charge, for the time being.


----------



## Grey (Oct 13, 2008)

The fact is he is our president, if you like him or not you respect him. My father said that it used to be or atleast with the people he new that you respected the president just for that reason. Now people are scrutinized if you do not hate the guy. Or atleast were I am.


----------



## Polar Bear (Oct 13, 2008)

TheGunDoctor said:


> Whether he's a good man or not makes no difference to me. Fact remains that he's the man in charge, for the time being.


 
Told to me by my PSG "Respect the rank but you don't have to respect the man"


----------



## Looon (Oct 13, 2008)

Polar Bear said:


> Told to me by my PSG "Respect the rank but you don't have to respect the man"


Yep.


----------



## TheGunDoctor (Oct 15, 2008)

Nick said:


> The fact is he is our president, if you like him or not you respect him.



Pardon me, but I disagree with you. You cannot force a man to respect someone, nor can you lawfully order or demand respect. The only thing that we are required to do as soldiers is to obey, follow, and execute the commands that are given to us, which is what I do. 

Even according to the seven Army values-- respect is basically treating people as they should be treated. In the case of the President, you simply render the proper courtesy. 

You see..."showing respect to someone " is *not* the same thing as "having respect for someone"
Just as Polar Bear said: (Respect the rank, not the man.)


----------



## Bravo Five Romeo (Oct 24, 2008)

Bingo.
I think he's a shitty president and has mishandled the war on terror and his response to 9/11 sucked ass... but if I met him, I would respectfuly address him as "Mr. President."


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Oct 24, 2008)

How did his 9/11 response suck?  We took over a large foreign country in a matter of days.


----------



## pardus (Oct 24, 2008)

Boondocksaint375 said:


> How did his 9/11 response suck?  We took over a large foreign country in a matter of days.



Yeah, but it wasn't a very nice foreign country!


----------



## Bravo Five Romeo (Oct 24, 2008)

Boondocksaint375 said:


> How did his 9/11 response suck?  We took over a large foreign country in a matter of days.


I'll let it slide that 9/11 happened on his watch... a fact I think many would be unforgiving of if it was another President in charge.

When the nation woke from its MTV and celebrity gossip slumber on 9/11 and looked to our leaders for guidance, President Bush took that opportunity to tell the people to go shopping and carry on as usual... and eventualy the nation went back to its MTV and celebrity gossip slumber while the military and their families went to war.
That was failure number one.
No, we didn't need scrap drives or millions of volunteers like we did in WW2.
But he blew an oportunity to rally the nation and call for sacrifice, urge people stay informed, to help in their communities and become better citizens... a raly cry that a week earlier would have been ignored, but in those immediate days after 9/11 when the people were angry, scared, and frustrated they would have listened.

Moving on...
The world was united behind America more than ever.
Bush blew it and in a short time turned the world against us.

Iraq.





Boondocksaint375 said:


> How did his 9/11 response suck?  We took over a large foreign country in a matter of days.


Is it Iraq you're talking about in that statement?

The same Iraq that Bush said we needed to invade because they had WMDs and Al Qaeda ties.
The same Iraq that Bush told the rest of the world to fuck off over.
The same Iraq that months after the invasion when we didn't find the WMDs we thought were there and teh Saddam Al Qaeda ties turned out not to be true, Bush tried to pull a Jedi mind trick on the American people and say that that was not the reason for invading Iraq... but the reeson was to spread the "freedom agenda" in the Middle East.  That worked well.

As to the invasion... our military, even with the smaller numbers than they requested, kicked fucking ass, defeated the Iraqi Army and drove on to Baghdad and toppled the Iraqi government and military in record time.

Our military handed Bush a victory.
Bush took that victory and fucked it up and gave the military years of insurgency and over 4,000 dead after the fall of Baghdad.
How?
the Bush administration's plan for the occupation.
Or better yet the lack of a plan for the occupation and stupid ill advised plans created by people with no expertise on the region who were warned against by people who knew better.

Disbanding the Iraqi Army instead of using them to control the looting and restore order... also putting over a hundred thousand armed men out of work... yeah, that was smart.

DeBa'thifying all levels of the civil service, putting hundreds of thousands out of work and crippling the country's infrastructure to make it take longer to get the country up and running.

Back at the white house, he performed poorly as President during all this, allowing Rumsfeld and Cheney to run interference for him, blocking out any advisors who were against these ideas, including Colin Powell himself.

On the domestic front, to aid in the war on terror he later appointed an attorney general who was more interested in politics than law and didn't believe habeas corpus was a right of Americans in the Constitution.

Saying Bush did well responding to 9/11 just because he responded is wrong.


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Oct 24, 2008)

No, Afghanistan (ie OEF) was the US response to the 9/11 attacks. My statement had nothing to do with Iraq.


----------



## Bravo Five Romeo (Oct 24, 2008)

Boondocksaint375 said:


> No, Afghanistan (ie OEF) was the US response to the 9/11 attacks. My statement had nothing to do with Iraq.


My apologies then.
I have no issue with the decision to go into Afghanistan and I understand the logistical issues with the terrain and location and political issues with the locals that limited the scale of our response.
Seldom has any military acted for a more just reason.


----------

