Well, it was just fine with James Baker, Don Rumsfeld and other top US officials when he was doing his worst raping, torturing and murdering and the rest. 13 years of virtually unconditional support, including a reassurance from the US that (the US) would not intervene if (Iraq) went into Kuwait. Why was SH a good guy for those 13 years, and a bad guy now? This is inconsistent to the point of absurdity.
Firstly, Beige G3, get it right, learn some facts, and try not to be led by the nose by the Bush admin. and the nanny media.The war against Iraq was NOT, ever, ever in a geological era started because Saddam Hussein ran a regime of rape and torture. The war on Iraq was started because Bush told the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and he was saying that he was intending to attack America with them. Now that reason has been exposed for the lies that it is, they are now pushing the "freedom for Iraqis" thing. This "liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam's regime" line is the most flagrant piece of santimonious bullsh?t in the history of foreign relations....what a piece of fortunate coincidence for Bush that Saddam is out of the picture: the administration is milking it to make it look as if they have "compassion". What BS!!! Why the hell should Bush and his cronies give a flying fvck for the people of Iraq when they don't even give a damn for America's working people, even our own troops and veterans?
This whole post is inflammatory oral deification. Show me some legit proof that everything was "just fine" with former administrations. I would like to see where you got all of that from.
I am trying to keep this civil and debate based. What exactly is in check so I know not to cross that line?
OK i have read from scratch all the posts of this thread. A lot where just flame war and ironic pseudo intellectual/funny verbal exchanges. This thread will continue to live as long there will be substance ( i am not concerned as a moderator, by the quality of the substance, but by it's presence).
I am sorry but i did not have the time to learn all the post of this thread, and therefore my comment was not particulary directed to you, or anyone. Do you think that after a good ski, i will take five hours of my time trying to analyse deeply such a (recurrent) thread ?
Funny, for someone in second grade I still write better than you. So what's up ? Been playing a lot of Quake lately? Man, these little chickenhawks can be a lot of fun. Lot of fun.
sammi jo, these little chickenhawks can't see beyond their own noses. They're Bush Jr. Republicans before they're Americans, which is scary. I praise your patience and "commitment" to educate them but....
I for one am not part of that your "Bush Jr. Republicans" swipe.
I simply do not like blind partisan remarks clouding up the truth. In addition, I like things to make sense. I see a lot of comments that do not make sense, therefor I question them.
I do not really care who is president, but I do care about the fact that many of you are looking for anything to hang or impugn this president or anyone related to this admin. It is like a freshly painted car in a junkyard, it's that obvious.
OK i have read from scratch all the posts of this thread. A lot where just flame war and ironic pseudo intellectual/funny verbal exchanges. This thread will continue to live as long there will be substance ( i am not concerned as a moderator, by the quality of the substance, but by it's presence).
I am sorry but i did not have the time to learn all the post of this thread, and therefore my comment was not particulary directed to you, or anyone. Do you think that after a good ski, i will take five hours of my time trying to analyse deeply such a (recurrent) thread ?
What are the number of nations that are involved with this campaign?
According to Colin Powell...some 45 nations are a member of the "coalition of the willing"...or should that read, "coalition of the coerced"?
United Kingdom - attended the Azores summit with the US and Spain, will provide military support including about 45,000 troops.
Spain - attended the Azores summit with the US and the UK and is not sending troops into the conflict, but will deploy military personnel and equipment in a support capacity and offer warplanes to defend Turkey from an attack from neighbouring Iraq.
Australia - military support including about 2,000 troops and and 150 special forces.
Kuwait - Around 300,000 U.S. and British troops are in the Kuwaiti desert in preparation for an invasion, and it is a members of the GCC.
Poland - military support including 200 troops and a logistics ship.
Albania - military support of about 70 troops for non-combat roles.
Romania - providing basing rights and has contributed 278 experts in landmine removal and chemical and biological decontamination. It has opened its airspace to ally planes, and will contributed post-conflict and non-combatant military troops for humanitarian missions.
Czech Republic - sending a chemical-biological warfare support unit.
Portugal - granted U.S. permission to use Lajes Field air base in the Azores Islands, a traditional eastern Atlantic refuelling stop.
Italy - not sending troops, but will provide the minimum base of logistical support, in particular, the use of bases and air space.
Turkey - is still negotiating the extent of its involvement in any war.
Japan - prepared only to provide post-conflict financial support for the reconstruction of Iraq due to Japan's post-war pacifist constitution bans the use of force in settling international disputes.
South Korea - may send non-combat troops likely to be a 500-strong engineering battalion and has pledged aid as well as help to war refugees.
Denmark - a warship and a submarine, a medical team, and AWACS crew-members. Also set aside funds for postwar reconstruction.
Netherlands - sent patriot anti-missile batteries to Turkey and about 300 soldiers to man them along border with Iraq. They have given full support to the US in moving its troops through Holland to the Middle East and will to take part in any peace-keeping operation in Iraq after the war was over.
Hungary - providing political support.
Estonia - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.
Latvia - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.
Lithuania - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.
Bulgaria - has offered 150 non-combat troops.
Slovakia - providing political support.
Macedonia - providing political support.
Azerbaijan - providing political support.
Afghanistan - promise of support due to involvement in the war on terrorism.
Georgia - offered political and moral support and use of its air bases/
Philippines - political and moral support.
Uzbekistan - promise of support due to involvement in the war on terrorism.
Colombia - prepared to offer political support due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.
El Salvador - has offered political support and will send Salvadoran military officials with any U.N. troops assigned to maintain peace in Iraq, due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.
Nicaragua - prepared to offer political support due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.
Dominican Republic - providing political support.
Costa Rica - providing political support.
Honduras - political and moral support.
Eritrea - political and moral support (may be seeking US support in a boundary dispute with rival neighbour Ethiopia).
Ethiopia - political and moral support (may be seeking US support in a boundary dispute with rival neighbour Eritrea).
Rwanda - providing political support.
Uganda - providing political support.
Iceland - does not have an independent military but will provide postwar humanitarian relief.
Singapore - will allow US military ships and aircraft to call at Singapore and to use military bases and air space.
Mongolia - providing political support.
Marshall Islands - providing political support as it does not have a military.
Micronesia - providing political support.
Solomon Islands - providing political support as it does not have an independent military.
Palau - providing political support.
Panama - providing political support
In most cases, this sounds more like lipservice than support.
I heard that one nation (cant find the link right now) was considered to be member of the "coalition" because they provided the use of a Corvette sportscar (!!!) to some official....
Then consider: the governments of the nations who actually were the most gung-ho for the Bush plan were the ones whose people (remember them?) were overwhelmingly against going to war. In the case of Spain and Italy, the opposition was up to 90%...and these nations held some of the largest public antiwar protests in world history. Their concerns were spot on: terrorism and the risk of further terrorism has increased since Bush decided to prove once and for all to the world that he's a cowboy instead of a responsible leader.
According to Colin Powell...some 45 nations are a member of the "coalition of the willing"...or should that read, "coalition of the coerced"?
United Kingdom - attended the Azores summit with the US and Spain, will provide military support including about 45,000 troops.
Spain - attended the Azores summit with the US and the UK and is not sending troops into the conflict, but will deploy military personnel and equipment in a support capacity and offer warplanes to defend Turkey from an attack from neighbouring Iraq.
Australia - military support including about 2,000 troops and and 150 special forces.
Kuwait - Around 300,000 U.S. and British troops are in the Kuwaiti desert in preparation for an invasion, and it is a members of the GCC.
Poland - military support including 200 troops and a logistics ship.
Albania - military support of about 70 troops for non-combat roles.
Romania - providing basing rights and has contributed 278 experts in landmine removal and chemical and biological decontamination. It has opened its airspace to ally planes, and will contributed post-conflict and non-combatant military troops for humanitarian missions.
Czech Republic - sending a chemical-biological warfare support unit.
Portugal - granted U.S. permission to use Lajes Field air base in the Azores Islands, a traditional eastern Atlantic refuelling stop.
Italy - not sending troops, but will provide the minimum base of logistical support, in particular, the use of bases and air space.
Turkey - is still negotiating the extent of its involvement in any war.
Japan - prepared only to provide post-conflict financial support for the reconstruction of Iraq due to Japan's post-war pacifist constitution bans the use of force in settling international disputes.
South Korea - may send non-combat troops likely to be a 500-strong engineering battalion and has pledged aid as well as help to war refugees.
Denmark - a warship and a submarine, a medical team, and AWACS crew-members. Also set aside funds for postwar reconstruction.
Netherlands - sent patriot anti-missile batteries to Turkey and about 300 soldiers to man them along border with Iraq. They have given full support to the US in moving its troops through Holland to the Middle East and will to take part in any peace-keeping operation in Iraq after the war was over.
Hungary - providing political support.
Estonia - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.
Latvia - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.
Lithuania - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.
Bulgaria - has offered 150 non-combat troops.
Slovakia - providing political support.
Macedonia - providing political support.
Azerbaijan - providing political support.
Afghanistan - promise of support due to involvement in the war on terrorism.
Georgia - offered political and moral support and use of its air bases/
Philippines - political and moral support.
Uzbekistan - promise of support due to involvement in the war on terrorism.
Colombia - prepared to offer political support due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.
El Salvador - has offered political support and will send Salvadoran military officials with any U.N. troops assigned to maintain peace in Iraq, due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.
Nicaragua - prepared to offer political support due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.
Dominican Republic - providing political support.
Costa Rica - providing political support.
Honduras - political and moral support.
Eritrea - political and moral support (may be seeking US support in a boundary dispute with rival neighbour Ethiopia).
Ethiopia - political and moral support (may be seeking US support in a boundary dispute with rival neighbour Eritrea).
Rwanda - providing political support.
Uganda - providing political support.
Iceland - does not have an independent military but will provide postwar humanitarian relief.
Singapore - will allow US military ships and aircraft to call at Singapore and to use military bases and air space.
Mongolia - providing political support.
Marshall Islands - providing political support as it does not have a military.
Micronesia - providing political support.
Solomon Islands - providing political support as it does not have an independent military.
Palau - providing political support.
Panama - providing political support
In most cases, this sounds more like lipservice than support.
I heard that one nation (cant find the link right now) was considered to be member of the "coalition" because they provided the use of a Corvette sportscar (!!!) to some official....
Then consider: the governments of the nations who actually were the most gung-ho for the Bush plan were the ones whose people (remember them?) were overwhelmingly against going to war. In the case of Spain and Italy, the opposition was up to 90%...and these nations held some of the largest public antiwar protests in world history. Their concerns were spot on: terrorism and the risk of further terrorism has increased since Bush decided to prove once and for all to the world that he's a cowboy instead of a responsible leader.
Once again, so says you. Provide links. If you are going to be so inflammatory, just back it up with something we can verify with.
I for one am not part of that your "Bush Jr. Republicans" swipe.
I simply do not like blind partisan remarks clouding up the truth. In addition, I like things to make sense. I see a lot of comments that do not make sense, therefor I question them.
I do not really care who is president, but I do care about the fact that many of you are looking for anything to hang or impugn this president or anyone related to this admin. It is like a freshly painted car in a junkyard, it's that obvious.
Bush sells the american public, the UN, and the rest of the american government on the idea of war with Iraq is necessary because of a direct threat to us ( yes there were other reasons listed but they wouldn't have got it out of the starting gate ). This threat was due to to alleged WOMD present in Iraq.
We fight Iraq and win.
In almost a year of searching we haven't found said weapons. Also there was no evidence of a delivery system capable of reaching us.
The only " sense " I can make out of this is that at best Bush and his advisors are incompetent. At worse he lied.
Once again, so says you. Provide links. If you are going to be so inflammatory, just back it up with something we can verify with.
Naples, this is so old news it's ridiculous. How is it you didn't look at any of this before and during the war, and then all of a sudden, some 7-8 months later, you wind up on AO with such a strong interest?
You know, this thread once again confirms the most important thing to bear in mind when dealing with the new breed of right wing triumphalist:
they have no shame.
People of good will, wishing the best for their country, desiring security and an effective response to the threat of terrorism, would be obliged to admit that the now starkly revealed miscalculations, misrepresentations, and deliberately misleading rhetoric surrounding the invasion of Iraq are disturbing evidence that the administration's "war on terror" lacks focus, cohesion, and direction. At least.
People who genuinely want a safer world, and who one would assume would believe that this cause is best served by clarity of purpose and a scrupulous caution in identifying actual threats, would be obliged to acknowledge the painfully obvious: that having sold the American people on an unprecedented pre-emptive invasion based on the specter of a direct, near term threat to the United States, a threat that was said to have included a rush to nuclear capacity, strong, substantive links to al Qaeda, vast arsenals of the most destructive sort of weaponry, and even bizarre scare stories like the talk of unmanned drones that were purported to have the range to reach north america; that having portrayed the threat in the starkest terms imaginable, subsequent events have failed to substantiate any of the stated reasons for going to war.
But not a word of remorse. Instead, we get lame post hoc posturing around "world better place without Saddam", typical internet parsing of micro-meaning, complete with line by line demands for links and proof, endless stirring of a disredited pot of rumors, forgeries and urban legends, half-assed assertions of "stuff that kinda resembles some of the things Bush claimed", and the usual ad hominem beligerance in re "liberals" (as well as third grade formulations that amount to: "well, if you love saddam so much, why don't you marry him?).
Read through the thread again. Notice that virually all the actual information is coming from people who opposed the war. Notice how nearly all the rebuttals (those that aren't just inane) traffic in the same kind of hazy chain of non sequiturs and dismissal of dissent as some kind of lethal character defect that characterized the run-up to war.
So I put it to our little stable of chicken-hawks: do you even care about America anymore, or are you so invested in denying "liberals" a "win" that you simply can't acknowledge the truth? That's right, I'm impugning your patriotism. I'm questioning your loyalities.
I want an America that is safer. I want an America whose freedoms stand as a rebuttal to tyrany. Where justice is a matter of practice, not sloganeering, and whose virutes are played out in her gravest actions.
You want an America where "liberals" are discredited and the Republican party holds perpetual sway under the mighty leader who answers to no one. Where pointing out error is considered "irrational hatred". Where the end, no matter how vaguely portayed, always justifies the means. Where power trumps justice.
I have found in modern politics that liberals, in particular often accuse others of things that they are guilty of. Thus putting their opponents on the defensive. I find most of your post fits that modus operandi.
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
So I put it to our little stable of chicken-hawks: do you even care about America anymore, or are you so invested in denying "liberals" a "win" that you simply can't acknowledge the truth? That's right, I'm impugning your patriotism. I'm questioning your loyalities.
I have nothing against straight thinking liberals. I have nothing against straight thinking conservatives. As a matter of fact, I have nothing against straight thinking people in general. But, straight thinking is not in big supply in this country's Democratic Liberal Movement. Just look all around you in almost every aspect of life. It is never ending. It can be argued that liberalism is hurting this country IMO.
I have stated repeatedly that there is room for both liberal and conservative viewpoints when it comes to politics, just like in real life. It is called a balance. I don't fault someone for questioning this government, that is natural and is expected, I think. I fault people in this issue for jumping to conclusions before all of the evidence is in. If Bush lied, he lied. And some extra time will not change that. But if he told the truth or he had good intentions, time will exonerate him.
Liberals fought and continue arguing, that "what would/will another month/year hurt?"as it applies to SH, yet that is too much to ask for your own President and fellow American? I smell hypocrisy.
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
[BI want an America that is safer. I want an America whose freedoms stand as a rebuttal to tyrany. Where justice is a matter of practice, not sloganeering, and whose virutes are played out in her gravest actions.[/B]
I think you already have a lot of that now, under GWB as president, at least it can be persuasively argued.
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
You want an America where "liberals" are discredited and the Republican party holds perpetual sway under the mighty leader who answers to no one. Where pointing out error is considered "irrational hatred". Where the end, no matter how vaguely portayed, always justifies the means. Where power trumps justice.
It's called fascism, and it is not patriotism.
Can I call you the "Flame thrower"? If liberals are wrong on this issue then they should be dicredited, and vise versa.
I fault people in this issue for jumping to conclusions before all of the evidence is in.
This coming from the guy who claims the kay report shows definitive proof of a bio-weapons program because he didn't bother to find out that the diseases discussed are common in Iraq and not even suitable for weapons at all.
Among a whole list of other things he's posted like this.
This coming from the guy who claims the kay report shows definitive proof of a bio-weapons program because he didn't bother to find out that the diseases discussed are common in Iraq and not even suitable for weapons at all.
Among a whole list of other things he's posted like this.
See, you are a master spinner also. i simply pointed out there was some evidence of WMD and WMD programs in response to declarations that nothing at all has been found.
See, you are a master spinner also. i simply pointed out there was some evidence of WMD and WMD programs in response to declarations that nothing at all has been found.
Am I? In reference to a bush admin claim, jimmac asked you, and I quote, "Where's the proof on this one?" which you answered immediately with the citation I am discussing.
You subsequently spent multiple posts harping on about it until I corrected you.
I have found in modern politics that liberals, in particular often accuse others of things that they are guilty of. Thus putting their opponents on the defensive. I find most of your post fits that modus operandi.
Tiz called 'turnspeak'. Has an interesting history behind it. Was extensively used by the the Nazis. I encourage you to read up on it. You'll find some very interesting links to Arab and leftists propaganda.
Am I? In reference to a bush admin claim jimmac asked you, and I quote, "Where's the proof on this one?" which you answered immediately with the citation I am discussing.
You subsequently spent multiple posts harping on about it until I corrected you.
So nice try, but...um...no.
I have stated repeatedly that there is evidence, I referred to it as evidence over and over in this thread. I made that clear.
Tiz called 'turnspeak'. Has an interesting history behind it. Was extensively used by the the Nazis. I encourage you to read up on it. You'll find some very interesting links to Arab and leftists propaganda.
The term describes it perfectly, thanks. I will read up on it.
I have found in modern politics that liberals, in particular often accuse others of things that they are guilty of.
You mean like someone who would "fault people in this issue for jumping to conclusions before all of the evidence is in" when the person making this accusation is clearly the one guilty of it, as demonstrated above?
You mean like someone who would "fault people in this issue for jumping to conclusions before all of the evidence is in" when the person making this accusation is clearly the one guilty of it?
Comments
Originally posted by Powerdoc
This thread is under check.
I expect more for 2004 than the way this thread evolve.
I am trying to keep this civil and debate based. What exactly is in check so I know not to cross that line?
Originally posted by sammi jo
Well, it was just fine with James Baker, Don Rumsfeld and other top US officials when he was doing his worst raping, torturing and murdering and the rest. 13 years of virtually unconditional support, including a reassurance from the US that (the US) would not intervene if (Iraq) went into Kuwait. Why was SH a good guy for those 13 years, and a bad guy now? This is inconsistent to the point of absurdity.
Firstly, Beige G3, get it right, learn some facts, and try not to be led by the nose by the Bush admin. and the nanny media.The war against Iraq was NOT, ever, ever in a geological era started because Saddam Hussein ran a regime of rape and torture. The war on Iraq was started because Bush told the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and he was saying that he was intending to attack America with them. Now that reason has been exposed for the lies that it is, they are now pushing the "freedom for Iraqis" thing. This "liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam's regime" line is the most flagrant piece of santimonious bullsh?t in the history of foreign relations....what a piece of fortunate coincidence for Bush that Saddam is out of the picture: the administration is milking it to make it look as if they have "compassion". What BS!!! Why the hell should Bush and his cronies give a flying fvck for the people of Iraq when they don't even give a damn for America's working people, even our own troops and veterans?
This whole post is inflammatory oral deification. Show me some legit proof that everything was "just fine" with former administrations. I would like to see where you got all of that from.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am trying to keep this civil and debate based. What exactly is in check so I know not to cross that line?
OK i have read from scratch all the posts of this thread. A lot where just flame war and ironic pseudo intellectual/funny verbal exchanges. This thread will continue to live as long there will be substance ( i am not concerned as a moderator, by the quality of the substance, but by it's presence).
I am sorry but i did not have the time to learn all the post of this thread, and therefore my comment was not particulary directed to you, or anyone. Do you think that after a good ski, i will take five hours of my time trying to analyse deeply such a (recurrent) thread ?
Originally posted by Gilsch
Funny, for someone in second grade I still write better than you.
sammi jo, these little chickenhawks can't see beyond their own noses. They're Bush Jr. Republicans before they're Americans, which is scary. I praise your patience and "commitment" to educate them but....
I for one am not part of that your "Bush Jr. Republicans" swipe.
I simply do not like blind partisan remarks clouding up the truth. In addition, I like things to make sense. I see a lot of comments that do not make sense, therefor I question them.
I do not really care who is president, but I do care about the fact that many of you are looking for anything to hang or impugn this president or anyone related to this admin. It is like a freshly painted car in a junkyard, it's that obvious.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
OK i have read from scratch all the posts of this thread. A lot where just flame war and ironic pseudo intellectual/funny verbal exchanges. This thread will continue to live as long there will be substance ( i am not concerned as a moderator, by the quality of the substance, but by it's presence).
I am sorry but i did not have the time to learn all the post of this thread, and therefore my comment was not particulary directed to you, or anyone. Do you think that after a good ski, i will take five hours of my time trying to analyse deeply such a (recurrent) thread ?
will do
Originally posted by NaplesX
What are the number of nations that are involved with this campaign?
According to Colin Powell...some 45 nations are a member of the "coalition of the willing"...or should that read, "coalition of the coerced"?
United Kingdom - attended the Azores summit with the US and Spain, will provide military support including about 45,000 troops.
Spain - attended the Azores summit with the US and the UK and is not sending troops into the conflict, but will deploy military personnel and equipment in a support capacity and offer warplanes to defend Turkey from an attack from neighbouring Iraq.
Australia - military support including about 2,000 troops and and 150 special forces.
Kuwait - Around 300,000 U.S. and British troops are in the Kuwaiti desert in preparation for an invasion, and it is a members of the GCC.
Poland - military support including 200 troops and a logistics ship.
Albania - military support of about 70 troops for non-combat roles.
Romania - providing basing rights and has contributed 278 experts in landmine removal and chemical and biological decontamination. It has opened its airspace to ally planes, and will contributed post-conflict and non-combatant military troops for humanitarian missions.
Czech Republic - sending a chemical-biological warfare support unit.
Portugal - granted U.S. permission to use Lajes Field air base in the Azores Islands, a traditional eastern Atlantic refuelling stop.
Italy - not sending troops, but will provide the minimum base of logistical support, in particular, the use of bases and air space.
Turkey - is still negotiating the extent of its involvement in any war.
Japan - prepared only to provide post-conflict financial support for the reconstruction of Iraq due to Japan's post-war pacifist constitution bans the use of force in settling international disputes.
South Korea - may send non-combat troops likely to be a 500-strong engineering battalion and has pledged aid as well as help to war refugees.
Denmark - a warship and a submarine, a medical team, and AWACS crew-members. Also set aside funds for postwar reconstruction.
Netherlands - sent patriot anti-missile batteries to Turkey and about 300 soldiers to man them along border with Iraq. They have given full support to the US in moving its troops through Holland to the Middle East and will to take part in any peace-keeping operation in Iraq after the war was over.
Hungary - providing political support.
Estonia - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.
Latvia - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.
Lithuania - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.
Bulgaria - has offered 150 non-combat troops.
Slovakia - providing political support.
Macedonia - providing political support.
Azerbaijan - providing political support.
Afghanistan - promise of support due to involvement in the war on terrorism.
Georgia - offered political and moral support and use of its air bases/
Philippines - political and moral support.
Uzbekistan - promise of support due to involvement in the war on terrorism.
Colombia - prepared to offer political support due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.
El Salvador - has offered political support and will send Salvadoran military officials with any U.N. troops assigned to maintain peace in Iraq, due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.
Nicaragua - prepared to offer political support due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.
Dominican Republic - providing political support.
Costa Rica - providing political support.
Honduras - political and moral support.
Eritrea - political and moral support (may be seeking US support in a boundary dispute with rival neighbour Ethiopia).
Ethiopia - political and moral support (may be seeking US support in a boundary dispute with rival neighbour Eritrea).
Rwanda - providing political support.
Uganda - providing political support.
Iceland - does not have an independent military but will provide postwar humanitarian relief.
Singapore - will allow US military ships and aircraft to call at Singapore and to use military bases and air space.
Mongolia - providing political support.
Marshall Islands - providing political support as it does not have a military.
Micronesia - providing political support.
Solomon Islands - providing political support as it does not have an independent military.
Palau - providing political support.
Panama - providing political support
In most cases, this sounds more like lipservice than support.
I heard that one nation (cant find the link right now) was considered to be member of the "coalition" because they provided the use of a Corvette sportscar (!!!) to some official....
Then consider: the governments of the nations who actually were the most gung-ho for the Bush plan were the ones whose people (remember them?) were overwhelmingly against going to war. In the case of Spain and Italy, the opposition was up to 90%...and these nations held some of the largest public antiwar protests in world history. Their concerns were spot on: terrorism and the risk of further terrorism has increased since Bush decided to prove once and for all to the world that he's a cowboy instead of a responsible leader.
Originally posted by sammi jo
According to Colin Powell...some 45 nations are a member of the "coalition of the willing"...or should that read, "coalition of the coerced"?
United Kingdom - attended the Azores summit with the US and Spain, will provide military support including about 45,000 troops.
Spain - attended the Azores summit with the US and the UK and is not sending troops into the conflict, but will deploy military personnel and equipment in a support capacity and offer warplanes to defend Turkey from an attack from neighbouring Iraq.
Australia - military support including about 2,000 troops and and 150 special forces.
Kuwait - Around 300,000 U.S. and British troops are in the Kuwaiti desert in preparation for an invasion, and it is a members of the GCC.
Poland - military support including 200 troops and a logistics ship.
Albania - military support of about 70 troops for non-combat roles.
Romania - providing basing rights and has contributed 278 experts in landmine removal and chemical and biological decontamination. It has opened its airspace to ally planes, and will contributed post-conflict and non-combatant military troops for humanitarian missions.
Czech Republic - sending a chemical-biological warfare support unit.
Portugal - granted U.S. permission to use Lajes Field air base in the Azores Islands, a traditional eastern Atlantic refuelling stop.
Italy - not sending troops, but will provide the minimum base of logistical support, in particular, the use of bases and air space.
Turkey - is still negotiating the extent of its involvement in any war.
Japan - prepared only to provide post-conflict financial support for the reconstruction of Iraq due to Japan's post-war pacifist constitution bans the use of force in settling international disputes.
South Korea - may send non-combat troops likely to be a 500-strong engineering battalion and has pledged aid as well as help to war refugees.
Denmark - a warship and a submarine, a medical team, and AWACS crew-members. Also set aside funds for postwar reconstruction.
Netherlands - sent patriot anti-missile batteries to Turkey and about 300 soldiers to man them along border with Iraq. They have given full support to the US in moving its troops through Holland to the Middle East and will to take part in any peace-keeping operation in Iraq after the war was over.
Hungary - providing political support.
Estonia - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.
Latvia - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.
Lithuania - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.
Bulgaria - has offered 150 non-combat troops.
Slovakia - providing political support.
Macedonia - providing political support.
Azerbaijan - providing political support.
Afghanistan - promise of support due to involvement in the war on terrorism.
Georgia - offered political and moral support and use of its air bases/
Philippines - political and moral support.
Uzbekistan - promise of support due to involvement in the war on terrorism.
Colombia - prepared to offer political support due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.
El Salvador - has offered political support and will send Salvadoran military officials with any U.N. troops assigned to maintain peace in Iraq, due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.
Nicaragua - prepared to offer political support due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.
Dominican Republic - providing political support.
Costa Rica - providing political support.
Honduras - political and moral support.
Eritrea - political and moral support (may be seeking US support in a boundary dispute with rival neighbour Ethiopia).
Ethiopia - political and moral support (may be seeking US support in a boundary dispute with rival neighbour Eritrea).
Rwanda - providing political support.
Uganda - providing political support.
Iceland - does not have an independent military but will provide postwar humanitarian relief.
Singapore - will allow US military ships and aircraft to call at Singapore and to use military bases and air space.
Mongolia - providing political support.
Marshall Islands - providing political support as it does not have a military.
Micronesia - providing political support.
Solomon Islands - providing political support as it does not have an independent military.
Palau - providing political support.
Panama - providing political support
In most cases, this sounds more like lipservice than support.
I heard that one nation (cant find the link right now) was considered to be member of the "coalition" because they provided the use of a Corvette sportscar (!!!) to some official....
Then consider: the governments of the nations who actually were the most gung-ho for the Bush plan were the ones whose people (remember them?) were overwhelmingly against going to war. In the case of Spain and Italy, the opposition was up to 90%...and these nations held some of the largest public antiwar protests in world history. Their concerns were spot on: terrorism and the risk of further terrorism has increased since Bush decided to prove once and for all to the world that he's a cowboy instead of a responsible leader.
Once again, so says you. Provide links. If you are going to be so inflammatory, just back it up with something we can verify with.
I think that that is a small thing to ask.
try something like this
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030321-4.html
Originally posted by NaplesX
I for one am not part of that your "Bush Jr. Republicans" swipe.
I simply do not like blind partisan remarks clouding up the truth. In addition, I like things to make sense. I see a lot of comments that do not make sense, therefor I question them.
I do not really care who is president, but I do care about the fact that many of you are looking for anything to hang or impugn this president or anyone related to this admin. It is like a freshly painted car in a junkyard, it's that obvious.
Bush sells the american public, the UN, and the rest of the american government on the idea of war with Iraq is necessary because of a direct threat to us ( yes there were other reasons listed but they wouldn't have got it out of the starting gate ). This threat was due to to alleged WOMD present in Iraq.
We fight Iraq and win.
In almost a year of searching we haven't found said weapons. Also there was no evidence of a delivery system capable of reaching us.
The only " sense " I can make out of this is that at best Bush and his advisors are incompetent. At worse he lied.
Either way he should not be reelected.
End of story.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Once again, so says you. Provide links. If you are going to be so inflammatory, just back it up with something we can verify with.
Naples, this is so old news it's ridiculous. How is it you didn't look at any of this before and during the war, and then all of a sudden, some 7-8 months later, you wind up on AO with such a strong interest?
they have no shame.
People of good will, wishing the best for their country, desiring security and an effective response to the threat of terrorism, would be obliged to admit that the now starkly revealed miscalculations, misrepresentations, and deliberately misleading rhetoric surrounding the invasion of Iraq are disturbing evidence that the administration's "war on terror" lacks focus, cohesion, and direction. At least.
People who genuinely want a safer world, and who one would assume would believe that this cause is best served by clarity of purpose and a scrupulous caution in identifying actual threats, would be obliged to acknowledge the painfully obvious: that having sold the American people on an unprecedented pre-emptive invasion based on the specter of a direct, near term threat to the United States, a threat that was said to have included a rush to nuclear capacity, strong, substantive links to al Qaeda, vast arsenals of the most destructive sort of weaponry, and even bizarre scare stories like the talk of unmanned drones that were purported to have the range to reach north america; that having portrayed the threat in the starkest terms imaginable, subsequent events have failed to substantiate any of the stated reasons for going to war.
But not a word of remorse. Instead, we get lame post hoc posturing around "world better place without Saddam", typical internet parsing of micro-meaning, complete with line by line demands for links and proof, endless stirring of a disredited pot of rumors, forgeries and urban legends, half-assed assertions of "stuff that kinda resembles some of the things Bush claimed", and the usual ad hominem beligerance in re "liberals" (as well as third grade formulations that amount to: "well, if you love saddam so much, why don't you marry him?).
Read through the thread again. Notice that virually all the actual information is coming from people who opposed the war. Notice how nearly all the rebuttals (those that aren't just inane) traffic in the same kind of hazy chain of non sequiturs and dismissal of dissent as some kind of lethal character defect that characterized the run-up to war.
So I put it to our little stable of chicken-hawks: do you even care about America anymore, or are you so invested in denying "liberals" a "win" that you simply can't acknowledge the truth? That's right, I'm impugning your patriotism. I'm questioning your loyalities.
I want an America that is safer. I want an America whose freedoms stand as a rebuttal to tyrany. Where justice is a matter of practice, not sloganeering, and whose virutes are played out in her gravest actions.
You want an America where "liberals" are discredited and the Republican party holds perpetual sway under the mighty leader who answers to no one. Where pointing out error is considered "irrational hatred". Where the end, no matter how vaguely portayed, always justifies the means. Where power trumps justice.
It's called fascism, and it is not patriotism.
Originally posted by jimmac
End of story.
How many times a have you declared this?
Anyone care to count that high?
It has not ended the discussion. Nice try though.
Obviously there are questions to be answered on both sides of this issue. Saying end of story does nothing to help this debate.
Originally posted by addabox
So I put it to our little stable of chicken-hawks: do you even care about America anymore, or are you so invested in denying "liberals" a "win" that you simply can't acknowledge the truth? That's right, I'm impugning your patriotism. I'm questioning your loyalities.
I have nothing against straight thinking liberals. I have nothing against straight thinking conservatives. As a matter of fact, I have nothing against straight thinking people in general. But, straight thinking is not in big supply in this country's Democratic Liberal Movement. Just look all around you in almost every aspect of life. It is never ending. It can be argued that liberalism is hurting this country IMO.
I have stated repeatedly that there is room for both liberal and conservative viewpoints when it comes to politics, just like in real life. It is called a balance. I don't fault someone for questioning this government, that is natural and is expected, I think. I fault people in this issue for jumping to conclusions before all of the evidence is in. If Bush lied, he lied. And some extra time will not change that. But if he told the truth or he had good intentions, time will exonerate him.
Liberals fought and continue arguing, that "what would/will another month/year hurt?"as it applies to SH, yet that is too much to ask for your own President and fellow American? I smell hypocrisy.
Originally posted by addabox
[BI want an America that is safer. I want an America whose freedoms stand as a rebuttal to tyrany. Where justice is a matter of practice, not sloganeering, and whose virutes are played out in her gravest actions.[/B]
I think you already have a lot of that now, under GWB as president, at least it can be persuasively argued.
Originally posted by addabox
You want an America where "liberals" are discredited and the Republican party holds perpetual sway under the mighty leader who answers to no one. Where pointing out error is considered "irrational hatred". Where the end, no matter how vaguely portayed, always justifies the means. Where power trumps justice.
It's called fascism, and it is not patriotism.
Can I call you the "Flame thrower"? If liberals are wrong on this issue then they should be dicredited, and vise versa.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I fault people in this issue for jumping to conclusions before all of the evidence is in.
This coming from the guy who claims the kay report shows definitive proof of a bio-weapons program because he didn't bother to find out that the diseases discussed are common in Iraq and not even suitable for weapons at all.
Among a whole list of other things he's posted like this.
Originally posted by giant
This coming from the guy who claims the kay report shows definitive proof of a bio-weapons program because he didn't bother to find out that the diseases discussed are common in Iraq and not even suitable for weapons at all.
Among a whole list of other things he's posted like this.
See, you are a master spinner also. i simply pointed out there was some evidence of WMD and WMD programs in response to declarations that nothing at all has been found.
Originally posted by NaplesX
See, you are a master spinner also. i simply pointed out there was some evidence of WMD and WMD programs in response to declarations that nothing at all has been found.
Am I? In reference to a bush admin claim, jimmac asked you, and I quote, "Where's the proof on this one?" which you answered immediately with the citation I am discussing.
You subsequently spent multiple posts harping on about it until I corrected you.
So nice try, but...um...no.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I have found in modern politics that liberals, in particular often accuse others of things that they are guilty of. Thus putting their opponents on the defensive. I find most of your post fits that modus operandi.
Tiz called 'turnspeak'. Has an interesting history behind it. Was extensively used by the the Nazis. I encourage you to read up on it. You'll find some very interesting links to Arab and leftists propaganda.
Originally posted by giant
Am I? In reference to a bush admin claim jimmac asked you, and I quote, "Where's the proof on this one?" which you answered immediately with the citation I am discussing.
You subsequently spent multiple posts harping on about it until I corrected you.
So nice try, but...um...no.
I have stated repeatedly that there is evidence, I referred to it as evidence over and over in this thread. I made that clear.
So,.. Um .... Yes.
Originally posted by majorspunk
Tiz called 'turnspeak'. Has an interesting history behind it. Was extensively used by the the Nazis. I encourage you to read up on it. You'll find some very interesting links to Arab and leftists propaganda.
The term describes it perfectly, thanks. I will read up on it.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I have found in modern politics that liberals, in particular often accuse others of things that they are guilty of.
You mean like someone who would "fault people in this issue for jumping to conclusions before all of the evidence is in" when the person making this accusation is clearly the one guilty of it, as demonstrated above?
Originally posted by giant
You mean like someone who would "fault people in this issue for jumping to conclusions before all of the evidence is in" when the person making this accusation is clearly the one guilty of it?
What conclusion have i arrived at?
You are digging.