Quite a hypocrite now, huh? :321GFY

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, :thumbsup 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.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

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).

Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Only left wingers want to make that connection.

The war in Iraq has to do with a bad regime being outted. The world had been dealing with that regime for 20yrs now. While some countries like France, Germany, and Russia where making money from the regime. Our country the USA was losing money enforcing the UN sanctions.

So if you look at it in that light, and realize support for terrorism only happens when people have nothing better to live for. Such as starving because your regime is taking all your countires resources to build palaces and who knows what else. Then you'd realize something needed to be done in Iraq.

And as far as this thread being concerned about the World hating the USA so much. It happens, we are the lone super power left that right there brews jealousy from outher countries. Also, the world didnt suddenly start hating us overnight because of Bush's foreign policy. They hated us for decades it has more do with our cultural values then foreign policy. However, in the Clinton years his policy, foreign included was fly under the radar. Don't get noticed for anything which is why him getting a blow job was so newsworthy. What else can you remember about his adminstration? Hell he conducted a war the Bosnia War without anybody much raising an eyebrow. So of course our allies are going to get a little testy when the current admistration changes that policy and starts making them do things they might not want to do...

Rich, is that the best you can do?

If you don't like Kerry's quote, how bout...

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if Appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond Effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998


Amazing how this criminal Bush administration managed to dupe the world before it was even in power!!!!

Go back to school Rich, let the big boys play here!

Well, think of it this way... Saudi Arabia controlls OPEC. The USA's economy is highly influenced ont he decisions of OPEC. However, Saudi Arabia does alot of bad things we don't want to support. So it's a tough situation go either way and Bush loses.

So you believed Saddam when he said he had none? Personally, I wouldn't believe a thing Saddam had to said. Especially when he has motivations to lie.

Remember, thekingie has said we are not building a democracy there...but a democratic republic (he loves to play his semantics games)

But I'll give you 2 to 1 odds that it will never happen.."stable democracy" If it does, it won't be in our lifetimes. We keep thinking Iraq is like any other civilized western country in Europe, and it isn't. But it's very hard to get many of you to see the uniqueness of the arab middle east. It's a very complicated area that will not change with simple ideas.

Kerry and REPUBLICANS voted for this resolution because they were lied to on this point: "because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Now democrats and republicans alike know this is not true and realize what a mess it is.

Intelligent people like Kerry can and do change their minds when presented with real facts. Unlike George Bush who lives in his own simple world.

I guess you are limited to the tv for your information then.

I'm talking about the "Institute for Strategic Studies" to the "Brookings Institute" in the U.S. to dozens outside of the US.

1)You immediately shift to other people when you can't defend the Kerry quote. We are talking about Kerry here..not Madeline or Clinton as far as becomming the next President.

2) and in every quote, the emphasis was on PREVENTION of the development of nuclear weapons etc..which WAS successful. Hussein even destroyed the weapons he had way before we invaded.

The containment policy was working. There was no Al Qaeda connections in Iraq because Bin Laden & co hated the secular state that Saddam ruled and Saddam, for all his craziness, thought Bin Laden was a nut. So, I still don't see how our invasion of Iraq made the world any safer against terrorism.

Don't tell me to look at the bigger picture..that's a total copout.
When buildings are attacked in NYC, I want specifics..not generalities.

There is a "bigger picture" and the invasion of Iraq was/is a part of the bigger picture...and always has been and I stated this prior to the invasion of Iraq. The Administration used WMD's/WMD materials to beat the drums of war because our 14 Intel agencies...as well as British...Israeli...French and German Intel all concurred that Iraq possessed and/or were trying to acquire WMD's/WMD materials. The Administration had every reason to believe the Intel that was provided to them. The members of the House and Senate Intel Committees all received the same intel that was provided to the Administration and all of them to a man/woman...Democrat and Republican...voted to give the President the power to use our military as he "deems necessary". The invasion of Iraq was only in part about WMD's/WMD materials...down the list from the primary reasons for the invasion. You choose not to accept a "bigger picture"...but on the other hand with your lack of comprehension...you could not possibly understand a "bigger picture" anyhow.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter told the Iraqi National Assembly on Sunday that his country, the United States, "seems to be on the verge of making a historical mistake" in its calls for ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Ritter is in Baghdad as a private citizen to voice his criticism of the U.S. threat of military action against Iraq. He looked for weapons in Iraq from 1991 until 1998, when he was called back to the United States two days before a U.S. attack on Iraq.

But a report, to be published in Britain on Monday by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, is said to detail Iraq's efforts to stockpile weapons of mass destruction.

Ritter said Sunday that Iraq was not a threat to the United States.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/ritter.iraq/

RightWingNut Pornographers :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Wow, you don't even watch your own President. Ever time he has talked about Iraq, he's mentioned that it's part of his war on terror. You sir should at least try to know what you're talking about before trying to enter a thread. :1orglaugh

Smart informed people, like most countries in the world for example, believed the UN weapons inspectors like Ritter and Blitz when they said Saddam wasn't a threat. Stupid uninformed people believed Bush and Cheney's fear campaign, although if you watch a lot of TV I admit it would be hard not to have right after 9/11.

"Big boys"? Wow, grabbing quotes from Rushlimbaugh.com and using them to push a completely irrelevant argument really makes you a "big boy", good job. :thumbsup

Did any of those people think it was a good idea to preemptively attack Iraq despite pleas from the UN weapons inspectors?

Pay attention to more than Bush campaign ads and you may learn something.

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida." -- President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address (1/28/2003).


Hmmm... very interesting.

-P

only somebody living in a hole for the last 4 years would say something like this.

And why is it, when we prop up so many bloodthirsty tyrants around the world, this particular one had to go?

What if somebody thinks WE'RE a bad regime that needs to be 'outted'?

Rich, no offense meant here, I'm really trying to see what I'm missing... EVERYONE has been saying for the past 6 years or so that Saddam still had WMD programs... Republicans, Democrats, Americans, Europeans, Arabs... For YEARS. How out of all that, the Bush Administration is behind the lie and duping the whole world?

What is it about what they claimed and what everybody else claimed? Do they stand out because they were the first that decided to actually do something about it? Then say that! Don't just say they lied... Or, I honestly don't know, do you think that they actually new the truth, but still spoke what everyone else was saying so that makes them liars? Fine, then show me the proof they knew their intelligence was wrong.

I'm literally sitting here banging my head on the keyboard trying to see how what they did was so very wrong, in light of what everyone thought? Having poor intelligence is very different than lying. Asprin factories get bombed, Chinese embassies get bombed... We are not all-knowing.

I never understand how Bush goes from being a monkey who can't pronounce "nuclear", to the Iluminati mastermind who has duped the entire world to the brink of World War 3 with his evil Secret Nazi agenda!

Scott Ritter was very vocal about his views of the war in Iraq and the current administration LONG BEFORE the war began. It does not surprise me at all that someone who was against something from the start may find things he's not happy with currently. His opinion is pre-judged, to say the least.

I DO think it is possible for quick and dramatic changes in people's mentalities and governments, it doesn't take a lifetime. European countries of course, like the (ex) Soviet Union, East Berlin - as well as countries like Pakistan that have had pretty dramatic reversal in government policy at the minimum, all very quickly.

I'm not getting in the debate of Democracy vs. Republic because I think it's just an endless word game, but I think a "Representative Government" in Iraq will come about, and the people will adopt it quickly and happily. The only thing preventing this is if we pull out now and leave them stranded. Bush seems to be the most committed candidate to seeing this thing through. That's why I support him, see how things like that come together?

Saddam Hussein paid Scott Ritter several
$100,000.00, wonder what kind of work he did? :Graucho

I'll agree with theking here too, there IS a big picture. Maybe that's the big difference between the Bush haters and supporters, who knows. Remember, our campaign against the Japanese in WW2 began in North Africa against the Nazis... a long road.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

did the bush administration tell clinton these lies too?