No allies in Iraq?

I wouldn't expect Australia's Left to be insulted by Kerry, they are part of the same defeatist mob. There are also Americans who don't feel insulted when the US is called an Imperialist War Monger.

I suspect that Howard considers being referred to as coerced or bribed to be an insult, and unless Latham beats him next week, he will be the Australia that Kerry will have to deal with should he win election in November.

It is hardly the mark of the statesman that Kerry likes to consider himself to wager relationships between countries on undecided elections.

It is, however, the mark of the opportunist that Kerry actually is to say what he can to win points now and then worry about worming out of his comments at a later date.

It says little unless this sentiment is so strong that it drives Howard and Blair out of office.

Next week Australia will hold elections. We will see what we will see. If the conservative are swept aside then I will concede that the majority opinion in Australia is anti-war.

Ummm, no this is not what he said. He claimed Bush failed to get a full coalition of nations to come aboard with their plan, and I don't think he insulted them either. He's saying 5 countries does not make a coalition. He's saying when you go to war, you need to have the entire world on board, yet the majority of developed nations opposed our "coalition". Oh and by the way, do realize the coalition had dwindled to 30 countries and may be 28 before long?

Did you also know that only 5 countries sent troops to Iraq during the invasion?
UK-45000
Australia-2000
Romania-278
Poland-200
Albania-70

This is not a coalition, no matter how you look at it. It is a small backing at best, but not a coalition by any stretch of the imagination.

45,000 troops is a sizeable chunk of our armed forces, so I wouldn't agree that we have only backed the US "in a small way".

But it would have been if France and/or Germany joined in?

Sorry, he referred to them as the Coalition of the Coerced and The Bribed. In any neck of the woods, that's insulting.

No; to a large degree it is the truth. Some countries we have paid for their troops and others have benifited in other ways if only that they are a small country and they were probably afraid to be on the bad side of Bush.


To call those in other countries that disagree with the war the "left" when it is a majority is trying to be insulting. It is just another tactic that you guys use and are now attempting it world wide it seems. I don't think the tactics that you guy use here that works successfully will work world wide.

It was more than just those three countries that you mentioned that didn't join the the band of the willing. But even so; those countries have more of their own money and troops than most of the countries that are presently helping Bush besides the UK.

I honestly don't think those countries public is really all that insulted when the majority of public in those countries didn't want to go war in the first place. It is just something you guys are picking up in a desperate attempt to undo Bush's lackluster perfomance in the debate the other night.

They want in on a piece of Iraqi ass.

Hmmmm - wrong test, Finn me dear.

A majority of Australians have consistently been anti-war - most seem to believe that the US and UK and Oz went in on the basis of faulty intelligence - if not lies.

Sadly, polling seems to suggest many think Howard a liar - but are still prepared to support him for reasons unconnected to the war - like the economy and such.

I don't think Iraq is currently a major issue for most in this election - except for those who are very dismayed by the war, which is quite a large number, including some normally conservative voters (called "the doctors' wives phenomenon", of all the dumb names!) but not enough, I think, to swing the election - ie most of the really committed anti-war folk would prolly have voted Labor anyway. Sadly, I suspect this might not be true if we had lost soldiers.

I do not think Iraq will be a cause of either defeat or victory for the current government.

I hate seing Norway on that list of yours. We caught our government trying to sneak a few hundred soldiers off to Irak, and the opposition started pounding them with it. This resulted in the troops being withdrawn right away, exept for 10 soldiers who apparently were tied up in some reconstructionprograms that couldn't be left to anyone else. (read, the right wing party in our right of center coalition government demanded to be on Bush's list) The other right of center parties in our government have been struggeling to convince people that aiding in the reconstruction efforts in Irak does not contribute to legitimising the war. Done is done, and we ought to make the best of the situation. Bush gets defensive every time the war comes up though, undermining their efforts. If the United States were to assume the position of almost all, if not all the other members of the coalition, and admit that the war was a mistake, I can definitely see our contribution increasing. Opposition to sending troops will probably also diminish if the universal hate--object in the white house were to be replaced. We probably wouldn't send more than a thousand troops, we are a small country after all, but I think the sentiment in Norway is quite representative of that of Europe in general.

By the way, does the Philippines even have armed forces?

Here is a list of the contributions of "the willing" for those who are interested. (scroll about to screens down) We are not alone in contributing in name only.

Army Air Force, Navy and Marines: 'defense portal Phiipinnes' :wink:

Alright, I suspected they didn't, but I must have mixed them up with some other Oceanian nation.

"Coalition" of the willing - like when the US tried to bribe Turkey with four billion dollars to become part of the coalition. JLN is right, most were bribed in one way or another.

No, but it would have been a start. You can also create a coalition WITHOUT France and Germany. I know the games you play and your logic, you LOVE to bring up France and Germany because then you can use the Oil for Food scam. Well, what about the other developed nations? Do you know how many countries fought in Afghanistan? Over 70. How about the UN, who we went through to to gain support from other nations concerning Afghanistan? You will constantly try to avoid the backing of the UN because it counters your argument.



Yes, I hear every country mentioned condemning John Kerry, in fact Cheney told me so

I don't know why more people don't call you out for your obvious propaganda posting on this board. Sometimes you come across as an intelligent poster, but I know what's going on, I know your kind and I know your defense. You will never answer to charges brought forth, instead you will pose another question to the original poster concerning a similar type discussion. It's the old dodge and weave technique, and it will not work with me.

Instead of answering the hard question about how only five countries with troops for the invasion of Iraq is a coalition, when compared to the over 70 during the invasion of Afghanistan, you bring up a quote from Kerry.

You manage to hind behind the language and use the old dodge and weave technique hoping that normal people, who are rational, will actually take the time to answer your questions. So I will ask again, maybe this time I can get some sort of a response from you.

How in the world can you justify the "coalition" as a coalition when only FIVE countries had troops on the ground during the invasion. especially considering when there were over 70 countries with troops on the ground for the invasion of Afghanistan?

In hindsight, doesn't it appear that either our POTUS ignored the intel which stated counter opinions to the issue and lacked the diplomatic skills to bring more nations aboard with his plan. Or, do you think in your world of fantasy spin, that FIVE countries is enough to invade a country. Keep in mind the Axis nations and WWII when you contemplate your answer.

Finn used to post a lot more before he started getting called out on his atrocious logic in nearly every thread...

Cycloptichorn

Wow a really long bout of unchallenged self congratulation here!

You happen to be off the wall in your comments. My suspicion is that now that the polls reflect reality you guys will find yourselves enjoying you're own polemics without much attention from Kerry supporters who know better.

I'd suggest taking you arguments with a bit of ipecac, so they don't stay down too long and make you ill.

And besides you've invited a cacaphone of Polish jokes and I'd rather not get started whether or not there is a door of opportunity.

"Defeatest Mob" vs. "Suicidal-Homocidal Maniacs"

Who wins?

pad, They both won!

George W. Bush has insulted the WORLD. Which is worse?



Most likely they will contribute more AFTER Bush is out of office, which has been Kerry's point to begin with.



WHAT THREAT????



He actually does. But he will make it much more worth their while, rather than giving them money and coercing them into participating. Kerry will get these countries (and the world) that a stable Iraq is crucial, but we need a major course correction to make it happen.

And that starts with the Presidency.

The jury is still out on the subject..

SPECIAL REPORT

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html

Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
By Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 04, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.

Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.

Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere.

The source of the documents

A senior government official who is not a political appointee provided CNSNews.com with copies of the 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service documents. The originals, some of which were hand-written and others typed, are in Arabic. CNSNews.com had the papers translated into English by two individuals separately and independent of each other.

There are no hand-writing samples to which the documents can be compared for forensic analysis and authentication. However, three other experts - a former weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), a retired CIA counter-terrorism official with vast experience dealing with Iraq, and a former advisor to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton on Iraq - were asked to analyze the documents. All said they comport with the format, style and content of other Iraqi documents from that era known to be genuine.

Laurie Mylroie, who authored the book, "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War against America," and advised Clinton on Iraq during the 1992 presidential campaign, told CNSNews.com that the papers represent "the most complete set of documents relating Iraq to terrorism, including Islamic terrorism" against the U.S.

Mylroie has long maintained that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism against the United States. The documents obtained by CNSNews.com , she said, include "correspondence back and forth between Saddam's office and Iraqi Mukhabarat (intelligence agency). They make sense. This is what one would think Saddam was doing at the time."

Bruce Tefft, a retired CIA official who specialized in counter-terrorism and had extensive experience dealing with Iraq, said that "based on available, unclassified and open source information, the details in these documents are accurate ..."

The former UNSCOM inspector zeroed in on the signatures on the documents and "the names of some of the people who sign off on these things.

"This is fairly typical of that time era. [The Iraqis] were meticulous record keepers," added the former U.N. official, who spoke with CNSNews.com on the condition of anonymity.

The senior government official, who furnished the documents to CNSNews.com, said the papers answer "whether or not Iraq was a state sponsor of Islamic terrorism against the United States. It also answers whether or not Iraq had an ongoing biological warfare project continuing through the period when the UNSCOM inspections ended."

If this is SUCH big news (which it WOULD be), why is it showing up exclusively ONLY on CNSnews.com?

Oh, yeah. The Vice Presidential debate is on tonight. Silly me. Gotta re-brainwash the base before watching Edwards wipe the floor with Cheney.