"Bring it on." Do you support this kind of foreign policy?

Question

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-02-bush-iraq-troops_x.htm

Answer 1

That's the foreign policy you would expect from a schoolboy with very little living experience.

No, I only support grown-up foreign policy.

Answer 2

The goal of foreign policy is to further the security and economic interests of the country.

At the time President Bush uttered that phrase, American forces were building up for an invasion of Iraq. Hussein stupidly threatened the forces in Kuwait, and virtually declared war on the United States.

Bush, in response to a reporter's question about Iraq's capabilities (to take on the Americans, never mind defend Iraq), said, "bring it on." -- a common phrase well known to the average Texan. (Apparently, the Arabs, traditionally slow learners, figured that GEN Schwarzkopf's efforts were a fluke?)

Well, they got a second lesson. Much smarter minds have helped them on a path designed to cripple a mechanized force, i.e., attack the supply trains. (They haven't done that so well, either.)

The Middle East has been a powder keg for decades. *Any* modicum of stability in that region is a start. If the US can achieve a stable Iraq, particularly as some form of democracy and free-market economy, the surrounding dictatorships and oligarchies will have to make some serious adjustments in order to catch up.

They don't want to do so. They apparently fear change, since change would inevitably mean a relaxed grip on absolute power. That's a scenario they fear.

Answer 3

Israel – united states of america kin are an important ingredient interior america government's commonplace coverage interior the middle East. america Congress places important value on the upkeep of a specified and supportive courting with Israel. the foremost expression of Congressional help for Israel has been distant places help, with Israel being the main important recipient people help from 1976 to 2004; Congress video exhibit instruments this help heavily, alongside with different subject concerns in bilateral kin. Congressional concerns have affected distinctive administrations' rules over the final 60 years. Bilateral kin have developed from an preliminary US coverage of sympathy and help for the introduction of a Jewish place of beginning in 1948 to an unusual partnership that links a small yet militarily efficient Israel, based at america for its financial and protection stress capability, with the U. S. superpower attempting to stability competing hobbies interior the area. some interior america question the ranges of help and common dedication to Israel, and argue that a US bias in the direction of Israel operates on the price of enhanced US kin with fairly some Arab and Muslim governments. Others guard that Israel is a strategic best pal, and that US kin with Israel advance the U. S. presence interior the middle East. Israel is probably america' 2 unique substantial non-NATO allies interior the middle East. at present, there are seven substantial non-NATO allies interior the greater effective center East.

Answer 4

You people do realize that Bush has called this comment a mistake right , so while you are defending this outrageous foreign policy blunder he has already admitted to this mistake , kinda feel a little stupid now huh. Here is something that may put this comment into perspective for you, Bring em on, Is kinda like whacking a hornets nest and just standing their pretty stupid huh,

Answer 5

These lines say It all.

"The president also gave a forceful defense of the Iraqi war. He rejected a question about whether there was a gap between the Iraqi weapons program reported by intelligence and administration officials before the war and the scant evidence found since.

"Saddam Hussein had a weapons program," Bush said. "Remember, he used them — he used chemical weapons on his own people."
Key words from Bush's remarks are "had&used"

My question is where are the weapons that Saddam has that will destroy us????

Answer 6

No one in their right mind would support such a policy, but I doubt if your man really meant it the way it's portrayed. Bush W is like the kid in school with good intentions, but lacks the maturity, intelligence and general ability to convey his feelings properly, so instead just says the first thing that comes to mind. He's done this time and again, but in all honestly he doesn't want the military to be faced with even more enemies, but he probably meant that whatever the enemy can through at the USA military then they can handle it. Good on him to have such confidence, but bad on him for speaking like a child yet again.

Answer 7

Not after the people you are talking to already proved the ability to kill 3000 Americans, without our so-called President getting out of his seat.
At that point in time, it is just hot-shot sensationalism.

Answer 8

Bush sure brought it on war, hatred for the United States enrichment of the industrial military complex, and water boarding/wiretapping

Answer 9

Yes.

Answer 10

"Bring it on" is certainly better than the one that got us into Iraq and Afghanistan, and could pull us into Cuba and Iran as well, "YOU'RE DEAD B****!!!!"