1
   

No allies in Iraq?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 10:58 am
The repugs are skilled at diversion tactics. Only non-repugs can see it for what they are.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 10:59 am
Nice to see ya again, C.I.

Little angry about the Republicans today? heh

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Xena
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 03:37 pm
Whether it was Kerry or Bush, the French would betray us.

Chirac's War for Oil
What most people in America don't know about the French and the real war for oil, or rather in France's case, the anti-war for oil.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13021
=============================================
You could make Polish jokes, but that country is one of our closest allies.
The following Pole, has a blog site. It's a great blog and the Polish know what freedom means. It means you don't turn your back on those who are fighting for it themselves..

Chrenkin' off
It's been a nice present for yours truly's birthday today - all those thousands of visits since yesterday afternoon. I hope that at least some of you like what you see and will keep coming back to take an occasional peak inside my head and be exposed to my "chrenkin' off" about what's going on around the world.

Since you're all here, a word about where I'm coming from. I was born in the then communist Poland (in Krakow to be precise) and I grew up in a stifling, oppressive, dreary society that (I'm paraphrasing P. J. O'Rourke from memory) didn't kill you anymore, just bored you to death. In 1988 I migrated with my parents to Australia; it was a year before the Wall collapsed; and no, just like the CIA and all the experts, we had no inkling when we left that the communism wouldn't be around much longer. I was then still a naive youngster who thought that the Cold War was a simple struggle between the communist world (where everyone but the elite wanted the other side to win) and the Western world, which was free, capitalist, and fiercely anti-communism.

Boy, wasn't I in for a shock. Very soon I discovered that while I was correct in first part, the West, to a large extent, was either indifferent or quite friendly to the whole idea of socialism. In particular I was shocked to find out just how many among the Western elites (political, media, academic, etc.) thought that the communists were the good guys, or at least believed in moral equivalence between the free and the un-free world; how many thought that free market was bad and socialism in some form was still the way of the future; and how many were hostile and patronising to the values that I held dear.

Well, almost 16 years on, nothing shocks me anymore. But thanks to the magic of information technology I no longer have to rave on about it only to my friends. So welcome to the world of Chrenkoff.

...and this, boys and girls, is why most* of the left shits me to tears.

* having friends on the "other side" and appreciating good debate with decent people of genuine good will on the left.


Why I'm not an isolationist
George W Bush has been described as Wilsonian (I think it's meant to be an insult for a Republican) for his desire to spread democracy and liberal order around the world; neo-conservatives are routinely accused of radicalism. Critics variously advise us to leave others alone, mind our own business, and concentrate on our own patch. Internationalism is deemed respectable only if it's of a multilateral variety. People who normally can't be accused of championing isolationists wish that President Bush was.

I don't know how our latest adventure in the Middle East will end. It might be unrealistic, or culturally insensitive, or even imperialistic to try to impose on other cultures and other peoples democracy, freedoms, human rights, open society and open markets, but I, for one, am glad that we're trying.

There is an old Polish motto that says "For your freedom and ours." Many who live in advanced Western societies take their security and prosperity for granted. Poles, who've experienced so little of either over the past two centuries, are much more aware of how precious and precarious freedom is. They also understand that freedom is indivisible; that increasing it even in the remotest corner of the world enriches the whole of humanity. And so, for the past 250 years, Polish émigrés and exiles have been involved in many a struggle for independence and liberty around the world - fighting for "your freedom" if they weren't always able to fight for theirs.

Hence, my American readers might be familiar with the Pulaski Day, named after a Polish general who had died in the American War of Independence. The history buffs among you might even be aware that the Texan artillery at Alamo was in the hands of Polish gunners, exiles from the failed Polish uprising of 1831. The Australian readers might be aware of the fact that Australia's highest peak, Mt Kosciusko, is named after a general and a freedom-fighter both in his native Poland and in the United States. And the American, British and Australian veterans of World War Two will remember fighting alongside Poles at Narvik, Tobruk, Monte Cassino, Arnhem, on the North Atlantic and in the Battle of Britain.

The point I'm making is this - we in the West all too often take freedom for granted, because we've never lived without it. That complacency also creates a temptation to discount the value of freedom for others; to try to spread it around is too hard, too costly, and ultimately not our business.

In the end, however, the costs of lack of freedom are much higher than the costs of promoting it. Yes, it's hard, it's expensive - in terms of both blood and resources, it's very often a thankless task (as the Coalition is discovering in Iraq), and in short term the results are often disappointing. Mistakes are made, good intentions are led astray, human nature intervenes and stuffs things up. But - there's more freedom in the world today than there's been at any stage in the past - and it's very difficult to argue that the world is worse off for it. Nor indeed that the American War of Independence or the Civil War, or World War Two, or the Cold War were not worth fighting for. Retreating into own private shell is not the answer - however easy, or comforting it may be to wash one's hands of the world's troubles and say f*** it. That's why I'm thankful for all those who today continue to fight for "your freedom and ours."


http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004_05_16_chrenkoff_archive.html
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 03:41 pm
Joe Republican wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Either Kerry doesn't believe England, Australia, Spain, Poland etc etc are our allies or he is clearly full of shite.


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.


right wingnut fuzzy math=coalition
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 10:49 pm
Joe Republican wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Either Kerry doesn't believe England, Australia, Spain, Poland etc etc are our allies or he is clearly full of shite.


Ummm, no this is not what he said.

No he said the Coalition of The Willing was actually the Coalition of the Coerced and Bribed. Do you really dispute this or are you simply trying to spin it to favor Kerry?

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.

Poland's leader was insulted, but what does he matter? He's not French, he's just a Pollack.

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?

Actually 5 countries do make a coalition. If a coalition must contain every country in the world, then maybe you're right, but if the whole world is on board, who is it going to attack?

Dwindled to 30 from what, 32 or 34?

I suppose if France and Germany ain't on board it doesn't matter if it's 28 or 128 countries.


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.

I don't buy your premise, but give us an example of what you believe was a real coalition so we can make some comparisons.

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 10:51 pm
Grand Duke wrote:
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".


Indeed, and some of us are grateful to have your nation with us.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 10:57 pm
dlowan wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
That the citizens of both Australia and the UK were/are angry with their political leaders for participating in the "coalition of the willing" says more than what any pundit wishes to say about this "coalition" in the US.


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.


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 certainly would never suggest that I know more about the political climate of Australia than you dlowan, but I correspond regularly with Australian friends and they have a different perception of things than do you.

Of course this doesn't make them right and you wrong, but as I know them very well and know you only through this forum, forgive me if I rely on their view.

Imagine though if revel's opinion about America were the only one Australians saw. Imagine what they might think.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 11:04 pm
Joe Republican wrote:


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.


Joe your ad hominum attacks are petty, and ill represent you.

If you care to do a little research you will find that I usually try very hard to respond to all of the contentions made by my opponents, and to not pick and choose only those I have a snappy reply for. Sometimes though I don't have the time or the desire. You can read what you want of this as I assure you that I couldn't care less whether or not you think you have my number.

I was enjoying our discussion but you've run it into a ditch.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 11:05 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
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.


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

Cycloptichorn


Coming from you Cyclo this is quite funny.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 12:10 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Poland's leader was insulted, but what does he matter? He's not French, he's just a Pollack.


I like your insults, especially, when they come without any prejudices (You have intimate knowledge of France, the French, Poland and the Polish, I suppose.)
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 12:20 am
There is certainly enough outrageous logic being stirred up within the spin cycle of this thread.

I think Finn d'Abuzz asked for an example of what Joe Republican believes would a real coalition would be so we can make some comparisons.

But first, some recent news as a precursor:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6181312/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6186540/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6186508/

O.K. Got it?

Now, let's look at the coalition from the FIRST Gulf War:

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0838511.html

Jan.-Feb., 1991, was an armed conflict between Iraq and a coalition of 32 nations including the United States, Britain, Egypt, France, and Saudi Arabia.

32 nations, many of which offered MILITARY support for a massive strike on Saddam's forces.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/gulfwar.htm

Quote:
The allies of Kuwait included personnel from 32 countries, but the dominating countries were USA, Britain, France, Egypt and Syria. Saudi Arabia was contributing with more funds than personnel, as it feared that Iraq could threaten its territory. On allied side, 700,000 soldiers participated, of which 540,000 were US troops.


500,000!!! Now wouldn't you think that was probably enough, including the extra 200,000 allied troops, to kick those Iraqis back home and out of Kuwait?

Quote:
There has never been issued any official figures for Iraqi troops, but it is estimated that around 500,000 were stationed in the region.
US estimates on Iraqi losses were set at around 100,000 dead, while Iraqi figures was put at around 60,000. On allied side, there were 376 dead.


Now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about! Talk about a lopsided victory. And we didn't have car bombers, urban guerilla's, and/or terrorists to worry about after we were done. We just flew our jets over their country, and everytime they took a potshot at us (amazing how they ALWAYS missed), we would bomb the **** out of them and kill more innocent Iraqis.

Quote:
The economical costs were set at US$82 billion. Split down on countries, this involved US$13 billion for Japan, US$22 for Kuwait, US$29 for Saudi Arabia and US$18 billion for USA. Iraqi officials claimed that rebuilding the infrastructure of the country would cost about US$200 billion.


Yeah!! It only took $22 billion, with 540,000 U.S. troops. Astounding. But let's not complain about the cost of inflation (Republicans hold your toungues), 'cuz there's quite a few monumental differences between the first Gulf War and this latest fiasco, no thanx to Jr. Chaos.

In the first Gulf War, the mission was clear; Iraq invaded Kuwait (because we let them), then our military might flexed it's awesome muscles (thanx to huge military contracts....can you say kaching?), and put our bad boys to work kickin' Saddam's ass clear outta there. But not before he burned the oil wells on the way out. Why? Because he thought they were his, and Americans don't get it when it comes to how Middle Easterners feel about their oil. Saddam has probably been more interested in just making a buck SOMEHOW.

And so we're back in there, and I am convinced that it is purely because of the oil. Why else is Bush buildling a bunch of military bases in Iraq as we speak? How can you explain the millions who protested BEFORE this war ever happened? NO BLOOD FOR OIL! Can you explain how so many people could succinctly predict what would happen if we invaded? Unfortunately, we were right. And now it seems to be getting worse.

Kerry has said things that has visibly upset the Saudi Royal family regarding Bush's connections with them and the oil industry. They are upset because it rings true, and Kerry is calling them on it. Our Middle Eastern policy ever since the Carter Doctrine, and renewed via the PNAC, makes it pretty clear where the neoconservatives are taking us and this country.

Look at the predatory, no-bid contractors who came into play in Iraq. Christ, these guys were salivating at the thought of reaping the benefits of their massive government contracts. They were like corporate vultures who'd been circling that country for YEARS, waiting for the right administration (with their whopping campaign contributions) to escort them in and dig for gold.

THIS is our Middle Eastern policy. Weapons of mass destruction (distraction) was the most effective way to convince so many to go along with Bush for the ride, and 9/11 gave us the shock and fear necessary in order to buy in to all of this.

60% of Republicans still believe Saddam Hussein played a hand in 9/11.

Wake UP America!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 06:40 am
Quote:
60% of Republicans still believe Saddam Hussein played a hand in 9/11.


Do you make this stuff up or is this another DU stat? Other than the spelling, I don't think you have even ONE fact correct.

Quote:
500,000!!! Now wouldn't you think that was probably enough, including the extra 200,000 allied troops, to kick those Iraqis back home and out of Kuwait?


And then Clinton happened. Decreased the size and makeup of the US military.

Quote:
In the first Gulf War, the mission was clear; Iraq invaded Kuwait (because we let them), then our military might flexed it's awesome muscles (thanx to huge military contracts....can you say kaching?), and put our bad boys to work kickin' Saddam's ass clear outta there. But not before he burned the oil wells on the way out. Why? Because he thought they were his, and Americans don't get it when it comes to how Middle Easterners feel about their oil. Saddam has probably been more interested in just making a buck SOMEHOW.


Saddam was all set to burn the oil wells in Iraq as well, but we stopped the guys doing it before they could. Now, you say we let Saddam invade Kuwait. Are you suggesting we should have pre-emptively attacked Saddam because he was a threat to Kuwait? I don't think that jibs with the liberal ideals of peace and love through non-violence... I can say Kaching, but I have no idea what it means. Is it even a word?

Quote:
And so we're back in there, and I am convinced that it is purely because of the oil. Why else is Bush buildling a bunch of military bases in Iraq as we speak? How can you explain the millions who protested BEFORE this war ever happened? NO BLOOD FOR OIL! Can you explain how so many people could succinctly predict what would happen if we invaded? Unfortunately, we were right. And now it seems to be getting worse.


Oil is part of the reason we are in there, yes. As well as the facts that Saddam posed a threat to the US, ignored repeated UN resolutions, supported terrorism and had WMD's. US policy is not now and has never been dictated by how loudly anyone protests. Thank goodness for that!


Quote:
Look at the predatory, no-bid contractors who came into play in Iraq. Christ, these guys were salivating at the thought of reaping the benefits of their massive government contracts. They were like corporate vultures who'd been circling that country for YEARS, waiting for the right administration (with their whopping campaign contributions) to escort them in and dig for gold.


You mean the ones that the Clinton administration setup? The ones that have been SOP for quite some time? If what you say is true, then they must have some powerful group of tarot card readers or crystal ball or something!

Quote:
THIS is our Middle Eastern policy. Weapons of mass destruction (distraction) was the most effective way to convince so many to go along with Bush for the ride, and 9/11 gave us the shock and fear necessary in order to buy in to all of this.


I'm saddened to see the state of our education system has produced such lack of understanding of how our government works.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 07:11 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Poland's leader was insulted, but what does he matter? He's not French, he's just a Pollack.


I like your insults, especially, when they come without any prejudices (You have intimate knowledge of France, the French, Poland and the Polish, I suppose.)


I'm afraid I don't follow your point here Walter.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 08:08 am
Well, in Europe since the 16th century, in the USA since the end of the 19th century, 'Pollack' is the insulting word for Jews, especially for Polish Jews (or sometimes Polish generally [since 1983 in the USA]).
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 08:11 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Well, in Europe since the 16th century, in the USA since the end of the 19th century, 'Pollack' is the insulting word for Jews, especially for Polish Jews (or sometimes Polish generally [since 1983 in the USA]).


Shocked

I didn't know that.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 08:28 am
I should know it - the American usage was influenced by the German example Sad

[Should be noted (at least similarily) in the Interactive Dictionary of Racial Language]
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 09:06 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/07/politics/07intel.html?oref=login&hp

Quote:
WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 - Iraq had destroyed its illicit weapons stockpiles within months after the Persian Gulf war of 1991, and its ability to produce such weapons had significantly eroded by the time of the American invasion in 2003, the top American inspector for Iraq said in a report made public Wednesday.

The report by the inspector, Charles A. Duelfer, intended to offer a near-final judgment about Iraq and its weapons, said Iraq, while under pressure from the United Nations, had "essentially destroyed'' its illicit weapons ability by the end of 1991, with its last secret factory, a biological weapons plant, eliminated in 1996.

Mr. Duelfer said that even during those years, Saddam Hussein had aimed at "preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted.'' But he said he had found no evidence of any concerted effort by Iraq to restart the programs.

The findings uphold Iraq's prewar insistence that it did not possess chemical or biological weapons. They also show the enormous distance between the Bush administration's own prewar assertions, based on reports by American intelligence agencies, and what a 15-month inquiry by American investigators found since the war.


Hmmm.... And this all happened during Clinton's watch. Maybe this is why both Powell and Rice testified publicly that Saddam was contained and the sanctions were working back in April of 2001.

Your insults aren't very becoming, McGentrix. I'll wager you've neither read the Carter Doctrine nor the PNAC's mission and subsequent information, an organization with strong ties to the Bush administration.

Neither could you address the many links I provided as a precursor. It's too bad this type of forum cannot offer a more fluid stream of thought, but instead allows us to cherry pick our talking points.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 09:43 am
You mean the fluid stream of thought that only agrees with you and your opinions and does not offer an opposing view?

I am well familiar with PNAC and agree with most of it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 09:45 am
How do you justify the PNAC stated goal of attacking Iraq, with the admin claiming to the American public that they had no intention of doing so before intelligence started pouring in in 2002?

Especially seeing as many of those who are in power now were the primary force behind the creation of PNAC policy?

Was the administration lying to the American public by not telling them 'yeah, we've been talking about attacking Iraq for years before 9/11'?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 10:06 am
I wasn't aware that PNAC represented the administration. That's like saying Michael Moore represents the Clinton administration.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » No allies in Iraq?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/04/2024 at 01:21:53