Dispatches From DC?

Au,

What is your point exactly? Since Saddam has no support of men and material from outside of Iraq, except from al Quaeda, it would seem to me that yoru question is meaningless!

We have 40 of 190 countries backng the US. Only one of them is a major power. What counts more, the number of nations behind us?The number of troups commited? The amount of money they'll put in to the effort? Most of those countries are little with not a whole lot to offer, but with a lot to gain.

jimnass
What question?

au,

This question:

"How much support in men and material are we getting from these supporters?"

Check out how happy Iraquis are at their liberation!


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/21/international/worldspecial/21CND-MILI.html

jimnass
What has to do with my question and whether he has or has not got outside support? The point is that these so called supporters do in no way offer material, manpower or financial aid for the operation. It's I am with you now you go fight and pay. In the Gulf war we had nations that helped carry the financial load. In this one it's I will be with you for a price.

Au, sorry but to me the price isnt an issue, the safety of the United States of America and of the world is the issue!

if only a few countries want to step up to the plate to take the butcher of bagdad out, then so be it! He has violated the treaty ending the gulf war and a series of UN resolutions, he has killed a million of his own people. he is the hitler of today - the issue is nto to make the same mistake twice, but to save lives.

but it is good for nations to support us in other ways - it shows that even if they cant send men they give there overt or covert support! not all nations are as strong as the us and england to do all we do. id rather have support than not!

did u check out the link above? the happy iraqui hugging an american liberating him and his people??

JimNas:

I will get to your questions.

As for the undecideds, I think they were on the side of INSPECTIONS and seeking a BROAD coalition. These are also the countries that I hope remember who defied teh UN and international law by Invading Iraq when the bill comes due!

BTW: Got more paper for the Rally tomorrow (My "USA--Newest Rogue State" sign fell victim to the rain)! I should have pics on The Next War by Sunday.

Neo,

do you know hom many wars/incursions the UN has sanctioned so far, since its existence?

and by the way, over 40 nations sounds like a broad coalition to me!

JimNass:

If I remember correctly, there are NO Middle Eastern Countries in the "Coalition". And the largest Muslim country, population wise, which even had a mass terrorist attack of its own has come out against the US/UK action.

As for wars, I'm not sure, but the 1st Gulf War, Kosovo and Afghanistan all had UN-backing.

But then--your only going on what your sources tell you!

Neo,

Kuwait and Qater are with us, syria and saudi arabia are also helping.

as for the UN, korea, becasue the soviets walked out of the security council meeting and the first gulf war, no not kosovo, not afghanistan - so if anyone remembers anything, it is that teh US stood up for teh UN and its passing , unanimously , resolution 1441!

Far from a rogue state, its unbeliveable you would call the US that!

But when the rest of the world said that inspections to continue, we DEFIED them and ATTACKED a country.

I hope the world remebers this when the time comes to rebuild!

I know I will, as I hope that the tireless efforts of the anti-war community (especially as I see this being like the "Cold War"), will continue--hopefully culminating in 2004 with a bit of "Regime Change" of our own:)

If not I fear this country will be on a path that I fear has but one end: http://www.geocities.com/eradicate_98/New_Patriot/Index.htm

Neo,

there are over 40 countires that are part ot the coalition of the willing! Do you think it must be unaimous before we take action? Action to protect our own country? The so called anti-war community, which doesnt seem to have any problems with Saddam Hussein, is a small minority in the United States, this nation's people overwhelminly support the President as he continues to protect our freedom!

its too bad the small minority cant seem to stick to peaceful protests, but instead attacks people and property, as well as causing people hardship with their blocking traffic, etc. Mob rule isnt how the united states decides issues! so i'd wish they would stop and not try to overthrow majority rule!

jimnass - shouldn't there at least be an agreement of a majority of countries? You speak of mob rule deciding american policy.... I see the Bush leadership as a mob ruling politics world-wide. You think 30% is a small minority? That's one third of the US population - a minority, perhaps, but not one that should be considered small. AAAAANND, there is no indication that Saddam Hussein threatens America.

Pfft, coalition of the willing, sounds like they are so enthused about it. Oh yeah, sure, I guess I'm willing to back you with a couple doctors and some technicians..... sure why not.

littlek,

why do we need a majority to protect american interests? if we were all alone we could do this, but the fact is we have over 40 allies in this - and we are protecting the world as well as this nation. we are, after 12 years of saddam's breaking treaties and UN resolutions, taking action. havent u seen the iraqi people welcoming the american soldiers? havent u heard that he has used scuds? scuds he said he didnt have?

also, while 20 some odd percent of america say they dont agree with the president, they arent all protesting, a minute minority is protesting, the other day in nyc there were hundreds, lol, hundreds in a city of 8 million!

saying saddam hussien isnt a threat, well, neville chamberlain thought hitler wasnt a threat, also, saddam is a guy who supports terrorists, its a fact no one can deny...i dont want another attack on america where my neighbors die while they sit in their offices!

jimmass said There's rather a lot anyone could take you to task for in your post, but let's just look at this first claim.

Could you please name them, then list contribution beside each name.

I think perhaps you wouldn't be able to do that. I'll assume you heard it said by one or the other of the administration voices, and you believe it to be so, and you repeat it here.

In the UN, the US had four votes in favour of its war against Iraq and more than a dozen against. The US has no mandate and no majority, which is precisely why they are lying about it.

If however, you make the list, with attached 'crucial' contributions, I will reverse my position.

Jim:

The quote that's the front of my new sign


The back: "Stop Bush's Madness".

(I don't want to see this be the beginning of a new "Cold War", and I have edged my bet and prepared two speeches for a speak-out. One alludes to this being a new "Cold War" and the need for us to keep moving to stop it HERE and NOW!)

We are a democracy! Shouldn't the rules we have for our internal politics be applied to the way we conduct our foreign affairs? How can we consider ourselves to be a democracy after disreguarding the majority of the leading global coalition?

And, I've heard A LOT about what is happening inside Iraq and many of those thibngs are in conflict with the others.

Neo,

as for your quote, its also true that people can be brought to oppose their own government's interest and people by propaganda and support of the enemy of its government!

why is this the new cold war and if so , what are the two sides?