Who's right-wing? You got me wrong. Most people here know I support Kerry. I don't see everything in terms of liberal vs. conservative or - here in the US - Republican vs Democrat.

As far as Britain, I'd hardly call 40,000 troops "token" help and I think it insults the British soldiers for anyoen to say that.

US had lost this war from the very beginning:ak47:

100 2nd vietnam

Probably the same thing as Clinton..containment and no fly zones.
At least we wouldn't have numerous terror organizations operating in Iraq as we do now.

Saddam was a fucked up dude. But he did NOT allow Al Qaeda & others to operate in the country because quite frankly he didn't trust them and saw them ALSO as a threat to his power.

Ok, so I have to find one of the dozens of respected military historians who do consider it similar to vietnam, wonderful. I have nothing better to do then to argue semantics with a jackass who will argue his incorrect Bush apologies to the death.

How about this to start. 26 former senior diplomats calling for Bush's removal. Simple enough.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...home-headlines

They are mostly poor people that have no jobs!!

In regards to the war in Iraq, you ARE representative of the American right wing who supports the war.

And I see you duck the issue when it's pointed out these 45 nations are just giving token "support". I included the U.K. as the U.S's lackey btw. What about the other 44 nations then? What HUGE support did they give?

In addition, there is huge potential for civil war in Iraq, with several different factions vying for power. This will take a while folks :2 cents:

Don't you know, the clerics had thousands of soldiers ready to fight while the Bathists were in power.

There you again. How does "diplomats calling for Bush's removal" support your position that Iraq is like Vietnam? They don't have anything to do with each other.

Rich's idea of "simple":

Colin: The sky is blue
Rich: No it's not because I have $1.42 in my pocket. Simple.
Colin: Uhhh, ok, Rich.

Actually, I said in this very thread that there was not enough evidence to justify an invasion of Iraq on the WMD issue so I still don't see you where are you coming from - unless you haven't read it all yet.

I didn't duck anything. You changed what I said. I said 45 countries supported the US position. I didn't say "45 countries sent troops". If you read back through the thread you'll see the context. Sad you think of Britain as "lackeys". I see them as a powerful
country making up their own mind about whether to go to war or not.

By your logic, France didn't oppose the US position because it didn't send troops to oppose it. That makes no sense. It's as easy as can be. Those countries agreed in public with the US position. That's that.

Thought Gore would be a do nothing jerk. I mean idot class. Idots are starting to look better and better. There is no question that we needed to build our military and still do. Chances are that is something Gore would not have done. That leaves the question: Would we be safer here? Would there have been a 9/11? Would we of had the fucked up patriot act? (pisses me off that had to use the word "patriot" on that bill).

Actually, you are supporting what I've been saying. Thank you.
So, there are not 45 countries who have sent military troops to fight in Iraq.

So I go back to a question I have asked: What is the BIG support that these other 44 countries (exclusing England) have given the "coaltion" that has proven valuable to the war effort?

P.S. And while you are fond of using the big number of FORTY FIVE countries, that groups doesn't even represent 1/4 th of the number of sovereign countries in the world.

From countrywatch.com:
Below is a list of Independent and Sovereign States of the World
Total count of Independent States: 192

And you haven't answered what is the total % of the world's population from these 45 countries (Excluding the US)?

Sorry..no crystal ball here to give you any answer.
Though it's a bit mystifying when people start playing the "what if" argument when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Gore is irrelevant to the war..Bush is VERY relevant to the war.

Richy boy...your entire post is uttter BS...not a word of truth in it. The voices in your head are lying to you.

In addition there have been thousands more Americans killed by Americans...in America during the same time frame of Afganistan and Iraq combined. 837 casualties are militarily insignificant...no more than an irritant.

Good thing North Korea dosent have any natural resources for the US to expliot.

Cause if they did there might be a reason to go over an make them stop producing WMD and nukes.

But oh wait.. China may not like that and as the last nation to accually threaten the us militaraly why dont we just let that slide. Instead we can go pick on a smaller weak nation with no military but an econamy that can be explioted to suit our needs.


Oh yeah and wile were at is lets give the rich massive tax breaks fuck over the middle class and raise the national debt to an all time high.

But hey.. whats 4 more years.:eek7

It is not similar to Vietnam...in almost anyway you care to present a comparison...buy a clue Richy boy...or get some help for those mis-informed and lying voices in your head.

It would not do any good for Centurion to go back and read anything as his comprehension level is near zero...or below.

"In addition there have been thousands more Americans killed by Americans...in America during the same time frame of Afganistan and Iraq combined. 837 casualties are militarily insignificant...no more than an irritant."


tell that to the famlies of the dead and wounded

and see if that comforts the famlies with sons and daughters yet to go to iraq.

What about the civilian casualties and there famlies who have died to help re build a countire ravaged by the War on there countrie. And for what...

Sadam is out of power.. yippie The next guy will be better..? ort the guy after him?

The world is safer..? More terrorist threats happen now then before 9/11 beacue of the increasing hatred toward the west due to the "Invasion" of iraq.

Im not bashing you im just saying droping an anvil on an ant seems like alot of effort to squash a bug.

And how many countries opposed? Not 192-45. Most would have NO OPINION.

And since when, ever in history, has the reason to war been decided by polling all the countries of the world, and then counting hands? Never.

This whole debate started with the statement that only 2 countries were on one side of a debate which is, incredibly wrong. There are 45 on one side and how many on the other? France, Germany, China, Russia? How many? Probably a LOT less than 45.

FYI...just very recently the Chinese admitted that their military is not any match for the US military...they also stated that they intended to change this scenario...but it will take them a couple of decades or more...assuming that they can ever become a military match.

yeah.. technologicly they would be fucked... but as a matter of man power is what i mean

How many soldiers they can actually field that are adequately supplied...I do not know. I do know that the army they fielded in the Korean conflict...were not all armed...some went into battle unarmed...and had to wait for an armed comrade to fall.

I do know that the US put 16 million people into uniform during the 2nd World War with less that half of our current population and a fraction of the current GNP. I suspect that...if push comes to shove...the US can still field and adequately supply the largest Army on the earth regardless of another countries population.

Grieving families...grieve...but their grief does not have any correlation to the current losses being militarily insignificant.

i understand in war people have to die. thats normally a givien and we should all be happy there not the same numbers as wars in the past..

Ok... but the point is why are those losses being incured in the first place...

The mission in Iraq is multiple...important (in my opinion)...and will suceed if the American people do not withdraw their support...but to accomplish the mission will be long term (a decade or more in my opinion)...and I fear the American people will withdraw their support

Very well put. While this may not be another Viet Nam (YET), the problem with those that support the war is that they can't see the big picture (while they preach to those who oppose it to WAIT and you'll see it will get better).

There will be another "benevolent dictator" who eventually will come to power (with the support of the US) and rule. And of course, we will probably arm him to the teeth, until one day, he decides he'll take after someone else with his army.

No wait..that's what happened with Saddam!!

http://www.ibillsucks.info/files/coalition_large.gif

Revealing, no?

The bottom line is that 44 other nations' prime ministers/presidents/dictators said "We support the U.S. in the Iraqi war." They may have even sent a few items also.

BIG DEAL! The bottom line is that there were ONLY TWO countries who found Iraq to pose such a big threat to world peace that they comitted a large amount of troops to the war effort.

Now THAT is what is most important..nations that are FIGHTING, not giving lip service support about the war.

Absolute BS. Not a word of truth.

Again, I agree with you whole heartedly.

This war is NOT about a military victory. It is about having a SECURE democracy flourishing in Iraq with the LEAST amount of casualties.

To say 800 plus deaths is "no more than an irritant" is to greatly demean the death of each American, or coalition soldier. Not to mention the THOUSANDS of innocent Iraqis that have died.

who said we won the war? everything is fucked up...

:1orglaugh Wow..I guess you PROVED me wrong with those 2 sentences!

I mean, it's not like the ENTIRE middle east is flourishing with repressive regimes and has a history of dictatorial rule does it??

You were dismissed several years ago.

Fact...there are but a relatively small number of nations on this earth that have the ability to do much more than pay "lip service" and the US usually bears the burden...troop wise and expense wise. Study and maybe you will learn...not.

You are right..and those countries with the exception of Britain have opposed the war! :1orglaugh

I appreciate that you are laughing at these countries...for being on the wrong side of history. You finally got something right. I am marking the date down. In the long run they will pay a much heavier price than what the US is currently paying.

:sleep

No we can defeat them, we are just doing it wrong :glugglug

Sometimes you are just out the window.
I'm laughing at YOU tard.

You said "you are right" (meaning me) then you laughed at the countries that opposed the war. Hmm...you have extreme difficulty comprehending what you read and now you have a problem with posting what you mean??

:1orglaugh Go to your room and pop some more pills.
:1orglaugh

To theking & Colin and everyone who can see straight, :thumbsup

Here's a run down of the same arguments, over and over again.

#1 - US is alone in this

- US invaded Iraq unilaterally!
- No, there were 40+ countries, almost 25,000 non-US soldiers...
- Ok, but those countries weren't France or Germany or Russia, so they don't count!

#2 - Bush lied about WMD

- Bush lied and said that Iraq had WMD
Then so did Clinton, Kerry, Gore, France, Germany, and the UN.
- No, they were given bad intelligence, or the evil Bush mastermind tricked them!

#3 - The terrorist connection
-The US lied and said Iraq was linked to terrorism!
- Yes, Saddam openly financially supported terrorist organizations...
- Well yeah, but they said they were linked to Al-Quaeda!
Yes, Iraq provided support and haven for Al-Zarqawi, an Al-quaeda senior.
- No, he doesn't count for some reason. The U.S. said Iraq was with Usama!
Did we? I don't remember us saying that to the UN

The arguments always start the same, as you prove each point they dig themselves further and further.


For anyone interested, Kerry 'telling lies' for 45 minutes in 2002 on why Iraq is a threat and he's supporting the president (CSPAN)

Neither do domestic US murder rates.

thats the thing though.. there was almost no planning on what would happen from the moment the statue was toppled. It's an incredibly obvious blunder.. that you would hope an organization the size of the US army would be able to avoid.. nothing about them being perfect.. just semi-competent.. what you had was a drastically low amount of invading troops, which was fine as a technologically advanced crushing force.. but absolutely hopeless at the "oh shit, the regimes gone - we don't even have half the troops we need to guard Saddam's weapon dumps" part.. Where you now have soldiers dying because the army wasn't thinking far enough ahead to stop these millions of round of amunition, guns and shells falling into guerilla hands.

Too much blind faith in the transformation doctrine on a micro level.

tell me how that will happen oh wise one

will terrorists target France for NOT invading Iraq or what

mostly pissant countries and with special deals or dependant on US foreign aid so they had to support the action. How many billions was the US giving to Turkey to "provide basing rights" again?
I honestly don't know how you can recite this knowing full well most of those countries didn't do it out of any moral obligation but were paid off, under threat, dependant or as a bargaining tool with the US.

unfortunately for anyone that can see through the BS, is that excepting Japan, Germany and France alone - not to mention Russia and China are more important that those 35 countries that "helped out" put together.


http://www.subnovastudios.com/misc/iraqcontribution.gif

So the same old story. You still can't admit that the US didn't act alone, and you just play down the participation of other countries. Isn't that the same arrogance many anti-US people complain about?

So are you saying that a war action is only "justified" or "supported" if Japan, Germany, France, Russia and China agree? What planet have you been living on?

Fact is we still had 40+ countries helping us against Iraq's ZERO. You can scream all you want about the "status" of Non-US allies, but they still contributed over 25,000 troops.

23% of the countries of the world were publicly committed to the Coalition at the beginning of the war including direct military participation, logistical and intelligence support, specialized chemical/biological response teams, over-flight rights, humanitarian and reconstruction aid, to political support.

What part of 23% is unilateral???

If your argument is that it's not ENOUGH support, fine. Then what is?

All right children - Play nice or you'll get a time out.

First: DON'T INSULT AL GORE. He invented the Internet.

800 US deaths in a war involving over a million troops is a very low number. Don't quote my numbers here, but I think the US lost 50,000 men in Vietnam. In WWII Mother Russia lost over a million men. That kind of puts it all into perspective. An American life lost is a huge loss, but when comparing numbers from prior wars it's a very small number. This is obviously not Vietnam.

There is no such thing as an "illegal" war. In simple terms, war is the entension of politics by other means. There is no court of law that can say a "war is illegal". It is proper to say that there was no "justification" for war; But if this is the case then there obvously wasn't any justification for Iraq invading Kuwait (and raping Kuwait and setting fire to the oil wells).

WMD aside, this war is still part of the 1991 Gulf war. We never really stopped shooting. We enforced the UN no fly zone, they shot missiles at our multi million dollar war planes, and we bombed them back.

The UN says is acting as if it didn't support this. The UN knew Iraq was a thorn in everyone's side, and they wanted to be done with it. They knew the US was going in.

Illegal war my ass. They surrended in 1991, aggreed to the terms, and them broke everyone one of them for over a ten year period. There is no doubt in my mind that we are doing the right thing here.