:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :thumbsup

I think a better question is why and who wants him gone...
Terrorists??? What you think about the rest of the world ??? ,...where were they on 9/11. Where would they be if we needed them????? I think instead of asking what Iraq has to do with war on terror What did those people have to do with the US foreign policy that caused their deaths on 9/11 ?????
I would vote for anyone that would defend my home land no matter what the rest of the would thinks.......So if this is not what you wanted to hear TOO bad.... The truth is hard for some people.

Your question was answered, you just didn't like it so you blew it off.

Our "unilateral" war with Iraq as you call it was supported by:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

Yes, that list has shrunk a bit since some of the countries got scared and tucked tail, but the fact is it was NOT unilateral. Just because this list doesn't contain some of the "traditional" allies of the United States, it includes many new ones that are alot more relevant to the region of this conflict.

Secondly, many of the allies not involved in the war in Iraq HAVE BEEN and STILL are allied with us on the war on terror. Special Operations forces from countries like Australia, the United Kingdom, Norway, New Zealand, Denmark, Canada, FRANCE and GERMANY, have been provided for Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

Europe is struggling right now for it's own identity, and they'll continue to snub the U.S. as much as they can to save face, regardless of who is in power. Bush just seems to be the "Enemy Of The Day", but they'll find fault in anything relating to the U.S. if it serves their purposes.

Remember, President Clinton purposely did not approach the U.N. when he started bombing in Kosovo. The U.S. decided to make it a NATO action instead of U.N. because of world opinion. In fact, we have more allies for the war in Iraq than in that conflict. Point is, fallout was not that great from that "Unilateral" action, nor will it be from the war in Iraq.

And to even suggest that this may anger the terrorists more, you need to look at history and realize they've hated us for the past 30-40 years, but for some reason since Bush has stood his ground the most to put an end to this while others want to just pretending it's not a problem, he's the bad guy?

Lastly, although not part of your original question, I had to chime in. You really need to do some research and check the history of U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq since 1991. Iraq was not in violation for producing weapons of mass destruction, it was in violation for not proving it had destroyed weapons it already claimed to have. Regardless of if they destroyed them or not, they were required to prove they had, not the U.N. or the U.S.

Everyone member nation of U.N. was in agreement that Iraq was in violation of U.N. resolutions.... The problem was that the U.S. was the only one to do something about it.

Why is it that when I start posting facts, nobody can come back with a response and just let the thread die? Let's go Bush haters, come in and back up your arguments for once instead of just quoting Michael Moore and running!

I'm too lazy to read your post but Bush has been endorsed by Al Qaeda so that is good enough for me.

From Fox: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html

What more do you need?

America is **NOT** a democracy.

A group that wants me dead already has hopes that Bush may be able to anger some more people doesn't change my opinion much. They want me dead if Bush wins - They want me dead if Bush loses. They hated us long before Bush came to power, and will regardless what the U.S. does, unless it becomes a completely secular Muslim state, which I'm sure it does want. That's got nothing to do with Bush, except for he's trying to kill people like that.

Because they don't have any thing 2 say to you. Another thing, would take a bit of thinking on there part.
They might a have small problem with this though.
I've read there post and it looks 2 me like most of them realy don't have that much to think with.

when you see shit like, Bush is a moron, Bush is a idoit, that tells me something.

I'm old enough and heard the same shit about Reagan, the press use 2 tear him a new ass often. :Graucho
by the why your post:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

50

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:321GFY

Samuel

what minority are you referring 2. :Graucho think this could be a
:1orglaugh 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! :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

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

:1orglaugh

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.

:thumbsup 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!

:thumbsup

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. :thumbsup

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.