Intresting,: Iraq, EU and Kerry/Bush MATURE MEMBERS ONLY!

[GT]

Don't bring any moron hate in here. We can have an educated discussion on AO.

Phil & Miscue feel free to remove this if it gets ugly.




I thought this was intresting:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/36048bf8-0f...00e2511c8.html

Granted there is abit of commentary, however this is the first I have seen this outside of conserivitive media. I think it is pretty safe to conclude that whether we get UN support or not, they will not risk thier necks aganist any US threat. In otherwords most enlightned EU nations are not going to participate regardless of the threat.

Intresting Factoid
Durring WWII we had the support of 7 nations
Durring the war with Iraq we have the support of 31 nations



Sidenote: I think alot of guys on AO enjoy the poltical discourse bewteen two different ideas. I will continue to post topics in this theme as long as we maintain maturity.

[RoadDawg]

I agree with that. In fact I pretty much already knew that it would probably go that way.

[chairman_mao]

Intresting Factoid
Durring WWII we had the support of 7 nations
Durring the war with Iraq we have the support of 31 nations

I think this factoid is somewhat misleading. The geopolitical landscape was a VASTLY different animal in 1941 than it is now, and the number of "signifigant" nationstates was marketly smaller. And those nations that weren't "signifigant" were inconsequential as far as the rest of the world was concerned. Today the concept of nationstates is waning and we are (whether we like it or not) slowly becoming a global society. In addition the major advancements in communications and transportation make EVERY nation a player on the global scene.

Sorry about the OT post but I thought that it was relevant to this factoid

[GT]

Sorry about the OT post but I thought that it was relevant to this factoid

true but its important to keep in mind that this isn't Bush's war.

[FactsOfLife]

So what?

France, Germany, and to an unknown extent Russia, are all about to be neck deep in the UN oil for food scandal.

France's objection to the war is hardly based on moral grounds.

They had long since ceased to be allies and became rivals a long time ago. Same with Germany. Their indignance over the war is a sham at best, and a CYA attempt at worst.

Not wanting their involvement with Hussein's governemnt made public, they screamed bloody murder that we shouldn't be removing Hussein from Iraq.

It's frankly disgusting that a country we bailed out less than 60 years ago from the yoke of Nazi Germany, is ready willing, and apprently able to stab us in the back over their illegal dealings with a known mass murderer and tyrant.

Bravo France. Bravo.

[ZSigErik]

So what?

France, Germany, and to an unknown extent Russia, are all about to be neck deep in the UN oil for food scandal.

France's objection to the war is hardly based on moral grounds.

They had long since ceased to be allies and became rivals a long time ago. Same with Germany. Their indignance over the war is a sham at best, and a CYA attempt at worst.

Not wanting their involvement with Hussein's governemnt made public, they screamed bloody murder that we shouldn't be removing Hussein from Iraq.

It's frankly disgusting that a country we bailed out less than 60 years ago from the yoke of Nazi Germany, is ready willing, and apprently able to stab us in the back over their illegal dealings with a known mass murderer and tyrant.

Bravo France. Bravo.

Could't of said any of that better myself, nice post.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

I think it was Benjamin Disraeli who said "great powers have no friends; they only have interests."

Neither France nor Germany has any interest in helping out in Iraq. Both countries had significant economic ties with the previous regime, which were severed when the US-led coalition invaded. And internally, like in a lot of countries, their politicians distract attention away from domestic political issues by redirecting negative attention towards the USA.

When they need your help on something else, they will offer help in Iraq, but not before. The Germans would like US & UK support in their bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security-Council, but that's not an immediate enough issue for them to risk domestic public opinion, even at mid-term.

Re: the factoid,
(A) "you" came late into the war supporting Britain, not the other way around
(B) USA, UK, Russia, China, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Newfoundland, South Africa, and you should probably add Poland, France and Holland. That's more than seven.
(C) the UN only had about 50 member countries when started, now it has about 200

[chairman_mao]

true but its important to keep in mind that this isn't Bush's war.

I think that this statement is a REAL stretch. This war can be considered a family legecy, but I digress. Just because you get people to support you doesn't mean that you are not the one who incited it.

Think about it this way if a pitcher purposely throws at a batter and a bench clearing brawl errupts is it not the pitchers fight because the team supported him?

That may not be the best analogy but the point is sometimes you support things so that you will get something in the future or as a return favor for past help. The support we were given is not unconditional. How many millions/billions of dollars did we pay Turkey to use their air bases and air space?

[GT]

How many millions/billions of dollars did we pay Turkey to use their air bases and air space?

We pay compensate coutries for many things, make sure the economy doesnt go into the tank, purchase land, services, or goods. Did we pay Turkey? Was it wrong to pay them? We did use thier air space....

This war can be considered a family legecy

sometimes you support things so that you will get something in the future or as a return favor for past help.

I'm sorry but you lost me here. I thought this was fact. When do people ever do anything without recieving something in return, even if it is a warm fuzzy feeling inside.


I think what I find most ironic about this whole campign is that kerry thinks we can get other nations invovled and clearly that is not the case.

[FactsOfLife]

I think that this statement is a REAL stretch. This war can be considered a family legecy, but I digress. Just because you get people to support you doesn't mean that you are not the one who incited it.

Think about it this way if a pitcher purposely throws at a batter and a bench clearing brawl errupts is it not the pitchers fight because the team supported him?

That may not be the best analogy but the point is sometimes you support things so that you will get something in the future or as a return favor for past help. The support we were given is not unconditional. How many millions/billions of dollars did we pay Turkey to use their air bases and air space?

Let's extend your analogy shall we?

Now batting out of left field, Saddam Hussein...

This was hardly a war of family legacy, to make such a statement is utterly absurd. This was the "severe consequences" outlined by a UNANIMOUS US vote regarding Saddam's continuing refusal to comply with the UN's OWN policies. At every turn President Bush was asked to involve foreign countries and the UN. When he did so, they, not he, decided to withdraw their support for the very actions they agreed to.

By their own actions they tacitly agree that they would have rather had Saddam remain power in clear violation of not only UN law, but the international law that the opponents of this war decry that the US and it's allies are in violation of. To say that the removal of Saddam is ANYTHING but a good thing is to be blind to the reality that he was documented mass murderer, a tyrant and in possession of WMD's and their precursor materials.

Why is it that the human rights watch organizations scream bloody murder about perceived atrocities, yet are either silent, or more often the case, outspoken about the removal of Saddam?

Why is it that they are not lauding the US and it's coalition for removing a known harborer of terrorists, a purveyor of massive killing fields, and an abuser of women's basic rights?

I would think that they would be ecstatic that 25 million plus individuals are only now, for the first time in their history looking at the opportunity of true freedom right in the face. I find it puzzling to say the least that they are acting in the opposite manner.

I for one am simply amazed that there are people here and abroad that are incensed that there are terrorists flooding into Iraq to fight out servicemen. Do you people not realise that this is a GOOD thing to quote Martha Stewart.

They're fighting on Iraq soil, NOT US SOIL.

As for the situation that led to our monetary help to Turkey, which country was it that threatened to not allow Turkey into the EU?

Oh yeah that was France.

Your charge that support is not unconditional, gee what is it called when a supposed ally threatens a country that your country needs the assistance of? Conscientious Objection?

France has used some questionable strong arm tactics against other countries to get what it wants, yet this is not criticized??? Especially when their motivation for doing so is highly suspect?

[CaptaiN_JacK]

This is our mighty Coalition:

United Kingdom 8,361
Italy 2,700
Poland 2,400
Ukraine 1,576
Spain 0
Netherlands ~1,400
Australia ~ 250 (+12-30 SAS)
South Korea 2,800
Romania 700
Japan ~550
Bulgaria ~485
Denmark 496
Thailand 451
Honduras 0
El Salvador 380
Hungary 300
Dominican Republic 0
Nicaragua 0
Singapore 33
Mongolia 180
Azerbaijan 151
Norway 10
Latvia 122
Portugal 128
Lithuania 105
Slovakia 105
Philippines 0
Czech Republic ~110
Albania 70
Georgia 159
New Zealand 0
Estonia 55
Kazakhstan 29
Macedonia 28
Moldova 12
Tonga ~45
Armenia 0

TOTAL ~28,600

United States: 130,000 troops, and as many as 50,000 added by next uear, bringing the total to 180,000 by next year.

Only 4.5% of the troops in Iraq are from countries other than the US. Quite the support we have. Definetly a mightier coalition than a measly 7 countries in WW2.

<b>Why is it that they are not lauding the US and it's coalition for removing a known harborer of terrorists and an abuser of women's basic rights?</b>

Because Saudi Arabia is one of our allies. Oh wait, you were talking about Iraq, my bad.


For every 1 terrorist or insurgent we are killing, we are breeding 10 more. That's probably an understatement. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more the resentment of US forces grow. This started as a war on Saddam and his regime, but it has quickly grown into a war with insurgents. A lot of the insurgents aren't even fighting for Saddam, or even support Saddam. Most just want the US to get the heck out as fast as we can, but they don't get it that the more they fight, the longer we're going to be there. The insurgents way of getting us out is digging us deeper in.

[-Carnifex-]

The coalition is a joke, it's more like America and (gimpy) friends.

[FactsOfLife]

This is our mighty Coalition:


<b>Why is it that they are not lauding the US and it's coalition for removing a known harborer of terrorists and an abuser of women's basic rights?</b>

Because Saudi Arabia is one of our allies. Oh wait, you were talking about Iraq, my bad.


For every 1 terrorist or insurgent we are killing, we are breeding 10 more. That's probably an understatement. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more the resentment of US forces grow. This started as a war on Saddam and his regime, but it has quickly grown into a war with insurgents. A lot of the insurgents aren't even fighting for Saddam, or even support Saddam. Most just want the US to get the heck out as fast as we can, but they don't get it that the more they fight, the longer we're going to be there. The insurgents way of getting us out is digging us deeper in.

No, I'm talking about human rights groups that are not acting like they're happy Saddam has been removed from power.

You tell me why they aren't happy. Because it's Iraq?

As for your assertion that it is the US that's creating these terrorists by killing/removing/defeating them, what utter nonsense.

You seriously need to stop watching Dan Rather for your news info. The vast majority of Iraqi citizens are grateful that we are not only there, but are ensuring that they will have their first free democratic elections.

The only ones there that are not happy are the Saddam loyalists, terrorists and those that stand to lose from having open elections.

As for our allies, interesting that those that say they are, have refused to stand by us while we removed a tyrant that killed a few hundred thousand of his own people and invaded Kuwait.

Why is it necessary to disparage those countries that have stood by us? Great way to build a bigger coalition guys, pee on the ones already helping. Real smart...

[CaptaiN_JacK]

<b>As for your assertion that it is the US that's creating these terrorists by killing/removing/defeating them, what utter nonsense. </b>

So you DON'T agree that the insurgency is growing stronger, and that it is way stronger and more organized than when we first invaded Iraq? Even Fox would say this is true. Maybe you're trying to twist my words around, I don't know, but the longer we stay there, the more the resentment towards the US grows, and more people are attacking us in Iraq. I don't blame them either, with their loved ones getting killed on accident by US troops. They are living in a war zone, and they get pissed of at the US because they started it, even though it's the insurgents that are keeping things the way they are.

I think it was ironic that Bush used the Iraqi soccer teams success in the Olympics as his poster child for the Iraq war, and Time quoted the captain saying that if he wasn't at the Olympics he would join the resistance in Iraq.

I agree that Saddam was a bad, bad dictator, and that he killed his own people, but if you remember, that WASN'T the reason we went into Iraq. If I remember correctly, the main reason for invading Iraq was to get Saddam out of power and destroy all of his WMDs, but we jumped the gun and went ahead without much support or information. The next reason to go to war with Iraq was because of 9/11, which Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with, no matter how many times Bush and Cheney repeat it to the press. Now the reason is becasue he was a bad dictator? Why didn't we attack him during the Clinton administration, or even the Bush Sr. admin.? You get on Kerry's case when he says he wouldn't of invaded Iraq, but you never get on Bush Sr's case, even though he probably could have got the other coalition members in the original Gulf War to help him get rid of Saddam.

The countries that stood by us during the war are brave, but they aren't wholeheartedly getting into the war like the US would like people to think. We are sending a lot of our troops over there, while our allies send few compared to what they could spare. They want to be allies with the US, and what better way than to support a US led invasion that no other countries want to be a part of. It shows courage, it shows valor, but it's only a half assed attempt for a full-out war.

<b>The only ones there that are not happy are the Saddam loyalists, terrorists and those that stand to lose from having open elections.</b>

Those are the only people that aren't happy? What about the people who have had their loved ones killed, or the people who had to live without power for so long, or the people who have to live in war zones every day? A lot of people were happy when the US first got rid of Saddam, but are getting mad because of all the chaos there.

[MaChu]

So Captain Jack what do you suggest we do about Iraq? You can complain all you want, but can you think of a intelligent plan to help Iraq in the state its in? All people who were against the war is focus on past events and every little negative thing they can get their hands on and not on the problems at hand. Do I see people who are against the war personally go over there to help the people via the Red Cross, Peace Corps, etc? No, all they do is complain. Thats what are soldiers are there now, they go over there regardless, helping people, trying to help a country, while the rest of you sit at your Starbucks, sip your coffee and complain about Bush. I agree we should have gone with more information and support, but look its in the past it now. We need to focus on ways to help Iraq now and the terrorist threats. I think thats what Bush was trying to accomplish with Iraq in the long run with other benefits(Oil and operational homebase outside of Isreal to other Middle Eastern countries) by giving an example of Iraq as a working, somewhat peaceful country.

Yes I know this is a sorta hateful post, but I had some older friends who got called into duty to Iraq and had people against Bush breathing down their necks about their decision to go into the military, and made me sick