Bush Supporters, got a question for ya

50 idiot supporting idiots

whoops, failed first time, must try again.

50

Your lack of comprehension in school is understandable...since you appear not to comprehend anything you read. As JimmyF pointed out the US is not a Democracy and has never been and further more...to the best of my knowledge a Democracy has not been a form of government since ever in history. FYI...the US is a Republic.

They rather support their own agenda...not facts.

Personally, I think they are both idiots. However, couple of comments in support of Bush.

Over 400,000 americans died in WWII, and 'we' won that war. it seems like a lot of people here just want somebody to blame. All I heard on this board after 9/11 is how we should turn Iraq into a glass parking lot (bullshit). Now, with a little heat in the kitchen, everyone wants to point blame on the leader and run with their tail between their legs (more bullshit).

fact: nobody here has all the information required to base such opinions off of. not even bush himself has all the info..

fact: retrospective vision is always 20/20

fact: kerry is an opportunist

new question directed at kerry: why would anybody 'request' a purple heart?

Bush won't get re-elected, remeber he won thanks to that minority who voted him in florida.. and I don't think they will repeat such a mistake again..
Eat this bush

Samuel

what minority are you referring 2. think this could be a
matter

What the hell are you talking about? Do you mean the minorities votes that they threw out?

As I said in my last post, I was leaving the comp for a while to do other things. That's why I hadn't replied yet.

Anyway,

Your post was very interesting, and your points are well taken.

I am not someone who goes about saying "Fuck Bush" ... I am just trying to understand why he has so much support in this country and your post has definitely helped.

Before I go on, I want to say that everyone who has posted in this thread the word "Idiot", on EITHER SIDE, missed the point completely and can go fuck themselves. I am not trying to start an elementary school argument, I'm trying to breed some real insite and understanding into the extreme dichotomy that has developed in this country.

Ooook ... anyway, let's take a look at your post, and I'll tell you what I think (for what it's worth):

Ok, you're right, it wasn't solely unilateral, other countries helped us with this operation in big ways.

Some points of interest regarding this fact, however:

Many of the countries who support the war in Iraq which are "alot more relevant to the region of this conflict" are, as you put it, "new allies" to the United States which in the long run is a very good thing.

However, the aquisition of many of these new allies is extremely suspect. I don't even want to go into it because it is speculation and not fact, therefore I will give you this one and say that yes, we were supported by several allies. (But please, for the love of God, explain to me GW's shady affiliation with Saudi Arabia and how we can possibly disregard it?)

One other thing that is not well-published, but causing this to look more and more like a financially driven, unilateral movement, is the actual troop number that are in Iraq.

After the US, the second highest military presence in Iraq is of US employed 'mercenaries' (for lack of a better word). These are soldiers for hire, and the US has engaged an unprecedented amount of them for this war. Again, this is a topic worthy of it's own thread, but the implications are clear. The allied support of this war effort is not strong enough to even make it feasible without 'hiring' (nearly 20k) mercenaries to fill in the gaps.

Now again, I'm not saying that your statement was incorrect, but these are a bare few of the reasons why this war is looked at as such a unilateral movement by the global community.

I never said that we'd lost allies in the war on terrorism.

In fact, I believe I said:

"But what I'm really referring to is turning allies into enemies. It hasn't really happened yet, but our allies are democracies, and the majority of PEOPLE in most of these countries do NOT like what we are doing. In the long run, this will have a huge affect on our relationships with these countries."

Ok, Ok, so I used the word "Democracy" in error. But please, you get the point. What I'm saying is that regardless of what the leaders of US allied countries are doing right now, if we continue on this path we will be pissing off a huge majority of PEOPLE in a US allied countries to such an extreme that it could effect the future of US diplomacy in a a negative way for years and years to come.

Right, the UN set an impossible task for Iraq to complete, and there was a reason why they took no action.

GW took it even further and said "Until you give up your WMD's, you are risking military action with the US"

Now, this may be extremely ignorant of me, but I seem to remember Sadam saying "We have no WMD's"... over, and over, and over again.

So ... what else could Iraq have done? Made some WMD's, then destroyed them and showed us a picture??

Alright that's all I got ... I wasn't trying to start a fight here, just wanted to hear some opinions. And let you hear mine

Thanks for the good conversation.

-P

There is a difference between SUPPORTING something and PARTICIPATING actively in a war.

Hello Dickless Wonder!

Haven't taken enuf pills to pass out yet eh?

It's hysterical to see you want to debate the issue of "are we a democracy" or not and support your old friend Bush who just today said he was "proud" to be sitting next to the President of a soon to be DEMOCRATIC Iraq!

So, Mr. turdforbrains, the U.S. is NOT a democracy, but we sure the fuck are going to turn Iraq into one though! Good gawd you're stupid!

You are one pot calling all the other kettles black!
You are THEKING of supporting your own agenda with no facts!

Yea...of zero comprehension. A "DEMOCRATIC" Republic...which is not a democracy.

Oh...what agenda am I supporting?? It is a rehtorical question...as I am fully aware that you cannot answer the question.

Thanks too, glad I was I able to get my point across.

Although, without completely hijacking the thread - I do agree that it would have been difficult for Iraq to meet all the demands made by the UN and the US. I even think he really did destroy most of the weapons he did have. But I still think there was alot more that Iraq could have done to at least show that it was earnestly trying. But as said before, that's a whole other thread.

I bet you think you educated him...I also bet that he knew the difference...between "SUPPORTING" and "PARTICIPATING actively in a war"...before you explained that there is a difference. You are a funny kid...not to bright...but funny.

"Friend"...no...I have never met the gentleman.

Hey, besides those of you who are just talking shit, this turned into a damn good thread!



I guess there's always going to be those who have nothing but mud to sling when it comes to politics ... whether it's in DC or on GFY.

-Phil

That list I gave ranged from: direct military participation, logistical and intelligence support, specialized chemical/biological response teams, over-flight rights, humanitarian and reconstruction aid, to political support.

So whether it's supporting OR participating that you want to use, they are still on our side!

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

lol. it was a token contribution by a couple of nations that matter ie japan who had their soldiers mainly away from the action in safe areas, and "moral" support from nations either propped up and dependant on by US aid, or trying to negotiate other benefits for their support, mostly WITHOUT the support of the actual population themselves.

how did the marshall and soloman islands help? lol. That list is a who's who of countries that dont matter but make great copy when Karl can get the president to say "with the coalition of 35 countries".

Even Australia who needed bargaining power with the free trade act negotiations and would have their wheat trade with Iraq in jeopardy from US companies sent only a symbolic amount of soldiers.
Militarily the US did not need ANY of the other coalition members aside from perhaps the UK. It just needed several countries to send in 500 soldiers each against the US's 130,000 to be able to say you weren't there alone, almost on a technicality. Which is FAR more important than their respective contributions.


if Iraqi non US/UK "coalition" was a milk it would be advertised as 98% fat free.

and the 2% left in are there for just that reason aid dependancy, trade and so on.

Ok, US has about 134,000 troops in Iraq

Second highest troop count: About 20,000 'mercenary' troops, mostly paid by the US to be there. (Note: These are ARMED US CIVILIANS, mostly ex-military)

After that it goes somethin' like this:

Albania - 71 non-combat troops in northern Iraq.
Azerbaijan - 150 troops for law enforcement and protection of religious and historic monuments in Iraq.

Bulgaria - 485 troops patrolling Karbala, south of Baghdad. An additional 289 are to be sent.

Central America and the Caribbean - Dominican Republic (300 troops), El Salvador (360), Honduras (360) and Nicaragua (120) are assisting a Spanish-led brigade in south-central Iraq.

Czech Republic - 296 troops and three civilians running a field hospital in Basra, and a small detachment of military police.

Denmark - 406 troops, including light infantry, medics and military police. An additional 90 soldiers are being sent.

Georgia - 69 troops, including 34 special forces soldiers, 15 engineers and 20 medics.

Estonia - 55 troops.

Hungary - 300 transportation troops.

Italy - 3,000 troops.

Japan - Delays a decision Thursday on sending troops to Iraq, citing security concerns after a surge in anti-coalition violence.

Kazakhstan - 27 troops.

Latvia - 106 troops.

Lithuania - 90 troops.

Macedonia - 28 troops.

Moldova - Dozens of de-mining specialists and medics.

Netherlands - 1,106 troops, including 650 marines, three Chinook transport helicopters, a logistics team, a field hospital, a commando contingent, military police and a unit of 230 military engineers.

New Zealand - 61 army engineers for reconstruction work in southern Iraq.

Norway - 156 troops, including engineers and mine clearers.

Philippines - 177 troops.

Poland - 2,400 troops, command of one of three military sectors in Iraq.

Portugal - 120 police officers.

Romania - 800 troops, including 405 infantry, 149 de-mining specialists and 100 military police, along with a 56-member special intelligence detachment.

Slovakia - 82 military engineers.

South Korea - 675 non-combat troops with more forces on the way. But Seoul will cap its force at 3,000 rebuffing Washington's request for additional soldiers.

Spain - 1,300 troops, mostly assigned to police duties in south-central Iraq.

Thailand - 400 troops assigned to humanitarian operations.

Ukraine - 1,640 troops.

United Kingdom - 7,400 troops, with an additional 1,200 planned.


I'm going to bed now, have a good one people.

90% fat free and thats counting the engineers, police and humanitarian contribution plus adding australia's troops that weren't in that count.

Other countries aren't mad, they're just jealous because we're the world's lone superpower; that and we are one of the freeest (spelling?) contries in the world. Bush's foreign policy decisions in my mind have been perfect. We did not, and let me stress, did NOT need UN support to go to war with Iraq. We don't need a "permission slip" from France and Russia to do something that is in OUR interest. France has never had a problem with Iraq so that's why they were against the war; they had nothing to gain or nothing to lose. Same with every other country that opposed us.

We are currently in Iraq right now with a 27-member coalition, so we are not their alone. We do have friends, and we do have supporters. And just because we may have been best friends with France in the past doesnt mean we have to be bosom buddies with them now; people change, governments change, alliances change.

Bush has simply looked out for the American people by promoting our national interest. 9/11 did not occur in France, it happened here. If you are pissed off at Bush for our "world image", I think that's pretty sad. Who cares what other countries think of us? They just want what we have, and that is power. It drives international relations today as it has always done in the past.

and the people who did it weren't from Iraq - what's your point?

terrorist hate the usa no matter who is president, bush tries to stop it, kerry would do nothing

Exactly. You have made absolutely solid points in your posts, and the people that want to argue with you have NOTHING.

I am one of those realists that look at losing Bush, like losing the country. Anyone that knows anything knows that Clinton absolutely destroyed this country, as if on purpose. (Actually just lack of effort)

I am terrified of what we will go thru if Bush is not re-elected. Terrorist organizations know that if Bush is not re-elected, they will be able to continue their agenda.

The reasons other countries are not supporting America right now is that, they have forgotten 9/11, just like thousands of idiots on this board and across the country, and, they did not personally feel the hit like the US did. France is a pile of shit as most people can agree, they deal with IRAQ and others directly, and thus do not support our war. This is OUR war, fuck everyone elses opinion. We have to ensure that our bigger cities are not destroyed by out of control monkeys with a brainwashed agenda.

If you do not agree with this, or question this, read it again, and let your brain do some thinking.

Exactly.

Fuck Kerry, this guy is the biggest liar/hypocrite i`ve seen since Clinton.

He poses as a hunter trying to get the corn Belt vote, but has voted against EVERY act of gun freedom that has gone thru the house.

He acts as if he wants to continue the war on terror and ramp it up with 100k more troops, but he has voted on EVERY act to grow the military, since Clinton crippled it.

These are FACTS. I will NOT sit here near a large city and wait for it to be destroyed.

They share a common cause, back the cause or otherwise contributed.

Right on, scream this until after the election.

Quite a hypocrite now, huh?

to be fare, he voted for it before he voted against it

LOL, even worse. I might as well run for presidency in my own declared party - I have as great of a chance.

It's good to know that all those countries are on our side.
But the only really signficant input a country can give the U.S. in a war like Iraq are troops and money.

And on that score..there are only two major players, U.K & the U.S.

The ones that aimlessly bash things generally have NO understanding, no source of information, and worse of all, no bandwidth in their mind to give these things considerable thought.

However, from time to time, some of these people will make an effort to post facts, but their facts are generally from some scientist that stretches the truth in order to get massive funding to go toward his cause.

Fact:

The entire storm about global warming was started when a broke scientist (later backed by nasa) did a small study and said that there " MAY " be an increased amount of clouroflourocarbons in the air, as a result of internal combustion engines.

That one famous word has lead the entire public on and on, to this disaster we have now.

Yes, we didn't need any approval from any other country or organization to go to war in Iraq. Might makes right in this case.

Yes, there are some countries that "support" the war in Iraq

But, there is also a large difference in doing the RIGHT thing and the wrong thing. You, as do many right wingers, continue to reference 9/11 as a justification for the war in Iraq. And it continues to amaze me that you and others think that this war in Iraq has IMPROVED our security against terrorism.

Almost every news organization of any value has repeated time and time again that terrorist organizations (besides Al Qaeda) have seen their membership grow since the war in Iraq began. Not exactly "diffusing" the terrorship problem frankly.

Clinton destroyed this country? Really?

Are you saying that if you had a choice of a time period to live in that you would choose 2001-2004 as opposed to say any year in the 90s under Clinton?

And would you (or anyone else) that claims that this is a war on terror and a successful one at that, please just post one specific fact that shows WHERE the Iraqi war has destroyed/stopped any major terrorist activity??

Please tell me HOW the Iraqi war has made you safer living in that large city you are talking about!

warlock667:

If that is the "list" of claimed "supporters" of Bush's war in Iraq - there sure are a lot of very angry supporters there. I can see at least 5 countries where the population were almost totally opposed to any "war" from the start and are in the process of chucking out their "leaders" for voicing any support. There is also a fair number of "supporting countries" who are little better than Saddam's Iraq and have been "bought". Strange bedfellows when the need arises to create a "coalition of the willing".

Have to agree with you - it's just another load of meaningless dribble. The end result of this is more "anti US" shit in these countries. There is always a cost for ... fraud and deception.

Which large city are you referring to?

Carlito:

Mmmm... I assume by that you consider it does not matter if you have countries as allies since they clearly are not going to be bother much about "alliances" with an attitude like that.

Na.. please don't assume other countries "want what we have" - that would be a big mistake - the majority sure don't want what you have - it's not something to be envied.

After 9/11 a French Newspaper carried the headline "Today we are all Americans"

America had more love, sympathy and support than it had ever had. Pity how Bush took it and threw it all away.

And that IS the Bush legacy!

No, Kerry could start to fight terrorism with intelligence and targetted operations and not by invading the wrong country and waste useful resources.
The past 2 days a lot of Al-Qaeda members were arrested in Belgium, Spain and Italy thanks to the good co-operation of intelligence services. Thats the way to figh terrorism. Not a single moderate muslim opposes these arrests but what they do oppose is the destruction of an entire country, the brutal killing of civilians, the humiliation of muslims and the torturing of prisoners. This kind of irresponsability just drives even moderate muslims towards al-qaeda. But hey, Iraq was all about oil not about terrorism.

Ok, let's see if we can get this all straight...

Regardless of "WHO" these countries supporting us are, or "HOW MUCH" they contribute, it doesn't negate the fact that 25% (48 countries listed out of 190) of the countries in the world are openly supporting/participating in the war in Iraq.

And the fact that it is the governments of these countries showing support, and not always the population - that just further proves my point to the original question regarding affects on foreign policy - I'd rather have the governments back the U.S. and not the people, than the people but not the governments.

According to Jawanda's list of contributing forces... that totals to just under 25,000 TROOPS! Is that the "token" amount you were referring to?!? Yes, it's a good sound byte to point out that Denmark for example provided less than 500 troops, but it all adds up. And what, did you expect Denmark to contribute 20 Stealth Bombers and a few aircraft carriers?

Let's see...

Carlito and the rest, I completely agree that so much is at stake right now. 9/11 was payment for U.S. policies for the past 40-50 years, not Bush's alone. This is a conflict playing out for years, and the two parties involved are so fundamentally different that coexistence and peace make it almost impossible. The only thing I've seen is that out of the past 40 years, Bush has made the strongest stand in this war, and although painful in some spots, it needs to be done and will help in the long run.

I would disagree there, because every contribution, big or small helps the U.S. Especially things like overflight rights and humanitarian aid. Alot of countries are limited by what aid they CAN give, so I think every bit helps.

My only response to that is to just look at the broader picture, which is difficult for even me at times. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, but I still see it as just one battle in a much bigger and longer fight. Iraq WILL become a safe, stable democracy in the end. A large thriving democracy in the backyard of a large number of terrorists and terrorist supporting governments will have a huge effect, and at the least will put a lot more pressure on these governments to start helping out, as it already has proven to do in many cases.

Although it's very questionable the ties between Iraq and terrorism prior to the war, there's no doubt that it is a hotbed now - but drawing out your enemy so you can defeat them, in my book, is a much better plan than letting them hide in caves for 10 years and plan more attacks. So I say, bring them on!

Of course that's the best way to fight terrorism, but what would you have proposed to do with Iraq? Was Iraq making any high profile terrorist arrests? Was Iraq saying to the rest of the world, "Hey, we would really like to help out and put and end to Muslim extremists"?

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

What news organization of any value are you speaking of New York Times, Los Angeles Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX.

Nah, most of the numbers that we hear about the recent growth of terrorist organizations post-Iraq come from Muslim based news organizations and are passed on to ABC, CBS, NBC, etc...

regardless of your stance on the war, the fact that terrorism is receiving an increase in support since the US invasion of Iraq is just that, fact. It's not something to argue about.

The other side, of course, is that the 'war on terror' has been thrust into the public eye, and governments around the world are spending more time and effort fighting this problem than ever before .... (regardless of the fact that Iraq had jack shit to do with 9/11 & Al Qaeda).

SO maybe it balances out...Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

-p

Right, notice the phrase "deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction". Every Senator who voted for the war was bullshitted by the administration just as much as every person who supporter the war. Wake up pal, Bush apologists are getting more pathetic every day.

One day you'll understand how stupid you sounded supporting these incompetent criminals.

I've killed several threads myself this way, usually the ones where these idiots compare Bush to Hitler (a comparison that's absurd at best).