A question for the Kerry supporters

1. FACT CHECK: Swift Boat Veterans for Bush, 8/5/04
http://www.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/080504_truth.html
2. McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad, 8/5/04
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=3&u=/ap/20040805/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_mccain
3. Republicans' Dishonorable Charge, 8/6/04
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/08/06/mccain_on_swift_boat_veterans/index_np.html
4. Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record, 8/15/04
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
5. From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity, 5/31/04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30.html
6. AP, 8/5/04 (McCain); Nebraska State Paper, 8/7/04 (Johanns); MSNBC, Scarborough Country, 8/6/04 (Buchanan)
http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/archives/002445.html#more
7. Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush, 8/10/04
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005460

Opinion Journal?!?

Damn liberal media...

And so 32 or 33 (including France, Germany and Russia) would have made it that much more significant?

I believe Kerry recently referred to them as the Coalition of the Coerced and Bribed.

That's sure to help America's standing in the world.

Very sensitive of him.

I wonder if he'll hold on to that moniker when he meets the heads of state from these nations.

Very good, Finn, you obviously read the GOP's latest talking points memo. You get a cookie!

Some needed background. During WWII, he National Guard was an honorable branch of the military. They were called to arms and went and died. When the seven or eight year Vietnam debacle got going, the Guard was used by those with influence who wanted their precious offspring safe and sound. The rosters were filled to the brim, but the Guard always had room for the precious offspring of the rich and influential.` And let's not forget the precious, professional football players. Sometimes whole teams found a safe haven. They could battle on a field, but not a battlefield.
Remember, each state's Draftboards were filled with political cronies who took care of their boys.

If a draft were to occur now, half the naition would get whiplash spinning their heads to watch the latest news about the draft.

Now, the guard has, again, heeded the call and served honorably. To equate criticism of the abuses of the guard during Vietnam with the fighting guard of WWII and today is just not being aware of the differences of the wars.


LBJ and GWB both concocted the Tonkin Resolution and the Weapons of Mass Destruction, to have their little political wars.

I'll never forget the historian Henry Steek Commager who said "If you're not willing to put five million men on the Indo-China peninsula (Vietnam), don't put five in.

To which a young marine who had beeb stationed in Vietnam as an advisor said to me, "When we throw five thousand marines in their, those Gooks aren't going to know what hit 'em."

The precious little cookie award. What a scathing retort. And so original.

I suddenly realize the Netherlands is part of the 'coalition of the willing'. Yesterday a Dutch soldier died in combat. I just heard two days ago that an old class mate will be send to Iraq in a couple of months. It stinks.

What? Do you not know it before?





exactly more informations available




It is hard for anyone from the country of the coalition.

Well it was actually meant to be sort of sarcastic Thok.

Ah ... the voice of reason, after all, from both sides, on this topic ... there is hope still. Thank you.

This is slightly off the subject,but I wanna ask the left a question...

Do all of you still insist that Bush acted unilaterally?
Do all of you still believe that the 30 nations that went into Iraq with us was us acting alone?

If you do,I guess you must think that we acted alone or unilaterally during WW2.
After all,we had 30 nations with Us in Iraq,but there were only 19 allied nations during WW2.
So,which action was more unilateral?

Iraq. Next.

How could it have been?
We had fewer allies in WW2 then we have in Iraq.
Since apparently you are judging by the number of allies,then WW2 was more unilateral.
Remember,we had fewer allies then.

Come on, man. I'm not going to do the work for you, but just look at how many troops the allied coalition sent to fight the war in WWII, then look at the number of troops the "coalition" for this war are from a country other than the United States. Its a total joke.

Let me get this straight...
First it was unilateral because we didnt have enough allies,now its unilateral because our allies didnt send enough troops?
Thats changing the definition.
Pick one definition and stick with it and it will be answered,dont change it when you dont like getting confronted by facts.

The question should be: can you compare the war in Iraq with World War II?

Bush compared this.

well, clear answer: No.

actually without explanation, it's not necessary. It sould be as a matter of course why not compare it.

Just counting the "number" of allies is a pretty simplistic and I might add, pretty stupid way to compare Allied involvement in WWII and Allied involvement in Iraq. And it's not valid. Think about it.

WWII: U.S., Britain, France, USSR, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, Yugoslavia

That's what? A half, even two-thirds of the world's population?

And I also might add that Bush is depending on the votes REALLY stupid, simple-minded people to get elected.

There is a certain tendency among a segment of the conservative true-believers to grab onto a particular fact like a hungry dog and shake it for all its worth, in some kind of vain hope that this is the magical fact that will end all debate. This persistence continues despite all contrary logic or facts, as if the mere repetition of the assertion establishes its truth. Call it, if you will, the "Captain Queeg Syndrome" (referencing the character in "The Caine Mutiny" and his fixation on "the strawberries" as establishing, without doubt, the existence of a duplicate key).

Here, it seems that mysteryman's "strawberries" consists of a list of countries that participated in the Second World War. I'm sure he thinks that, if we can only show that the "Coalition of the Willing" is larger than the allied coalition in World War II, we can somehow prove that the current coalition is "broad-based." And so we have the "fact" that only 19 nations participated in the allied effort in World War II, whereas the Bush-led coalition has 30 nations.

But, as Ronald Reagan pointed out, "facts are stupid things." In this particular case, the 19-nation allied coalition in the Second World War is not just stupid, it's a pure figment. Here is a list of the nations that comprised the allied coalition in World War II:

Agentina Australia Belgium Bolivia Brazil Canada Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Czechoslovakia Denmark Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Ethiopia France Great Britain Greece Haiti Honduras India Iran Iraq Lebanon Liberia Luxembourg Mexico Mongolian People's Republic Netherlands New Zealand Norway Panama Paraguay Peru Poland San Marino Saudi Arabia South Africa Soviet Union Syria Turkey United States Venezuela Yugoslavia

Now, to be fair, there are certain members of that list that I would not have included (e.g. India). On the other hand, there are certain countries that should be there but aren't (e.g. Italy). The total, therefore, is somewhat unclear (this was the best list I could find on the web), but it is certainly closer to 40 than to 20, as mysteryman would maintain.

Furthermore, in terms of percentages, the contrast is even starker, given that there were fewer independent nations in 1945 than there are today. In a world where there are 193 independent states, a coalition of 30 (or even 48, as the White House claims) seems rather paltry. Indeed, it is easier to list the nations that weren't part of the allied coalition than were members of it. Apart from the Axis and its associated states, the list of neutrals in World War II consists of the following:

Andorra Ireland Liechtenstein Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland Uruguay

Admittedly, it's true that some of the nations that joined the allied cause in the Second World War did not really do very much. It is doubtful, for instance, that El Salvador actually helped the allies win the war (although El Salvador declared war on Japan before the US did -- meaning that, for one, brief moment in history, El Salvador stood alone against the entire might of the Japanese empire). But then it is doubtful that Paulau, or Micronesia, or Uganda, as members of the "Coalition of the Willing," are doing a whole lot either.

In any event, this comparison between the two coalitions is simply ludicrous, as it defies history, logic, and common sense. It is time, in other words, for mysteryman to find his next batch of strawberries.