[quote="Scotty K"]
Russia? - Verbal support, but no troops. More interested in being repaid for earlier loans and for development opportunities.
Exactly. Also very concerned since they have their own campaign in this place called Chechnya, among others.
India - Frequent contributor to peacekeeping with one of the largest standing armies in the world. Large muslim minority We asked them to provide peacekeeping troops in Iraq, but declined; too dangerous.
Too dangerous. Interesting.
Pakistan - Another large standing army, muslim and frequent peacekeeping contributor. Increased aid after 9/11. Also asked to participate in Iraq post-invasion, but declined.
Probably our closest ally in terms of Afghanastan. Can't risk losing them there, can we?
Egypt - One of the largest armies in middle east, second/third largest recipient of US aid, muslim, participated in GW1.
Turkey - Another muslim country with a good size military, right next door to Iraq, we've got military bases there. Wouldn't allow us to use the country as a staging point
If you recall, they tried to blackmail us. We wouldn't pay up.
But then again, it is tough to expect many Arab country's, being either monarchy's dictatorships, or anything other than a representative government, to line up next to us as we seek to establish a democracy. Not to mention that the whole suspicion that they have about this being done as a means to push the Palastinian conflict one way or the other. But I guess we should just sit on the sidelines, right?
What about Canada? really all of NATO except Britain, Spain and Italy?
Norway, Denmark, Poland, Netherlands, Portugal, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Estononia, et al are all contributing personnel.
You also were critical about China's involvement because it's now about "democracy building". When the administration first raised the Iraq issue in 2002, it was not about democracy. Everything was about terrorism and WMD. China objected because, like most of the world, it did not perceive an imminent threat.
You are silly if you thought this was about WMD. It was about Regime change from the start. Don't blame me for the piss poor PR that W used.
Germany? It wasn't economics. Kosovo was the first time German troops left home soil since 1945. Um, the Germans, like the Japanese, have a thing about military action because of this little thing called World War II. You might have read about it; in all the history books.
I read about German current events and talk to enough German's to know that the economic situation has left very little political will for Shroeder to do anything controversial. Double digit unemployment and a close race in 2002 at a time that they were needed to commit to the war kept Schroeder on the sidelines.
"France is France"? Are you that ignorant and racist, or have you just bought into the whole current right wing hatred of the French because they didn't just jump on board ("with us or against us")? After Britain, France has the second strongest military among European countries. They have frequently sent troops into hot spots, especially in Africa, for political reasons. They fought 2 of the bloodiest conflicts in the second half of the 20th century: Algeria and Vietnam in the 1950's. Unfortunately, they had long-standing ties to Saddam, bad choice of friends. But, they did send troops for GW1.
The goal in Desert storm was to remove Sadam from Kuwait. The goal of this campaign was to remove him. That would comprimise their economics. I did not say that France would go into places that served theirown interests. But it is well established that they will not extend themselves for an "Ally"
Letter to the Red States
Nobodies blaming you... thats ridiculous...You are silly if you thought this was about WMD. It was about Regime change from the start. Don't blame me for the piss poor PR that W used.
But someone should be held accountable in insisting accountablility in the administration that preached accountability....
It is a really interesting Dichotomy with this administration. If you take your partisan glasses off, whichever color you are wearing.DMC wrote:Nobodies blaming you... thats ridiculous...You are silly if you thought this was about WMD. It was about Regime change from the start. Don't blame me for the piss poor PR that W used.
But someone should be held accountable in insisting accountablility in the administration that preached accountability....
1. They don't admit mistakes, but...
2. They recoginize them and respond to them.
This is not a new criticizm from me.
I don't know if you could be capable of doing a pragmatic analysis of it, I know many hardcore conservatives aren't.
Interesting is not the first word that came to my mind...CAPBOY wrote:It is a really interesting Dichotomy with this administration. If you take your partisan glasses off, whichever color you are wearing.DMC wrote:Nobodies blaming you... thats ridiculous...You are silly if you thought this was about WMD. It was about Regime change from the start. Don't blame me for the piss poor PR that W used.
But someone should be held accountable in insisting accountablility in the administration that preached accountability....
1. They don't admit mistakes, but...
2. They recoginize them and respond to them.
This is not a new criticizm from me.
I don't know if you could be capable of doing a pragmatic analysis of it, I know many hardcore conservatives aren't.
I don't think you are able to be pragmatic about it. Not a knock, just an observation. You are too idealistic and passionate about your stance. Not to say that you are not pragmatic at all...DMC wrote:Interesting is not the first word that came to my mind...CAPBOY wrote:It is a really interesting Dichotomy with this administration. If you take your partisan glasses off, whichever color you are wearing.DMC wrote:Nobodies blaming you... thats ridiculous...You are silly if you thought this was about WMD. It was about Regime change from the start. Don't blame me for the piss poor PR that W used.
But someone should be held accountable in insisting accountablility in the administration that preached accountability....
1. They don't admit mistakes, but...
2. They recoginize them and respond to them.
This is not a new criticizm from me.
I don't know if you could be capable of doing a pragmatic analysis of it, I know many hardcore conservatives aren't.
Back to the who's with us and who is against us thing...
Turkey - Henry Kissinger recently noted that they are the only successful, representative government in the Middle East, although it took a military dictator to create it and several military coups to keep it on course. Their parliment did not see our goals as building a democracy next door. I do agree that they tried to blackmail us for staging and fly over rights.
The European countries you listed provided a platoon and no more than a couple of companies of troops, all in civil affairs, military police, medical, engineering, NBC, logistics and transport roles. Mostly non-combat outside of some AA units.
As far as German commitment goes, it is about their political philosophy regarding any military action, not economics. Their economic situation is impacting the country, but no German president will send troops anywhere without a really strong case.
I'm not being "silly" about the stated reasons for the invasion; revisit the tape of Colin Powell at the UN. Personally, I think Bush revealed a lot when he blurted out to a reporter to remember that Saddam tried to assassinate his father in Kuwait. I think it was a personal vendetta, and the Neocons have had it out for Saddam since day one, as Richard Clark stated.
As for admitting mistakes or changing policies, I think this administration is very rigid on so many levels and on so many policies. It takes a real man to admit a mistake; it's the insecure that stick to their hidebound positions.
And back to how this originally started, Newsweek had a great post-mortem on the election, an entire issue. It makes me wonder how much of the election was a combination of disciplined organization and attack ads on the Bush side, and Kerry's undisciplined, disorganized approach and inability to inspire people. Unfortunately, Kerry just did not get enough people fired up; it was mostly ABB ("anyone but Bush"). People claim it was Bush's "moral values" but historically the Republicans pander to those people then forget about them after they're in power, throwing out sure-to-lose items like a gay marriage ban ammendment. "Well, we tried but those people in the Senate just wouldn't pass it..."
Turkey - Henry Kissinger recently noted that they are the only successful, representative government in the Middle East, although it took a military dictator to create it and several military coups to keep it on course. Their parliment did not see our goals as building a democracy next door. I do agree that they tried to blackmail us for staging and fly over rights.
The European countries you listed provided a platoon and no more than a couple of companies of troops, all in civil affairs, military police, medical, engineering, NBC, logistics and transport roles. Mostly non-combat outside of some AA units.
As far as German commitment goes, it is about their political philosophy regarding any military action, not economics. Their economic situation is impacting the country, but no German president will send troops anywhere without a really strong case.
I'm not being "silly" about the stated reasons for the invasion; revisit the tape of Colin Powell at the UN. Personally, I think Bush revealed a lot when he blurted out to a reporter to remember that Saddam tried to assassinate his father in Kuwait. I think it was a personal vendetta, and the Neocons have had it out for Saddam since day one, as Richard Clark stated.
As for admitting mistakes or changing policies, I think this administration is very rigid on so many levels and on so many policies. It takes a real man to admit a mistake; it's the insecure that stick to their hidebound positions.
And back to how this originally started, Newsweek had a great post-mortem on the election, an entire issue. It makes me wonder how much of the election was a combination of disciplined organization and attack ads on the Bush side, and Kerry's undisciplined, disorganized approach and inability to inspire people. Unfortunately, Kerry just did not get enough people fired up; it was mostly ABB ("anyone but Bush"). People claim it was Bush's "moral values" but historically the Republicans pander to those people then forget about them after they're in power, throwing out sure-to-lose items like a gay marriage ban ammendment. "Well, we tried but those people in the Senate just wouldn't pass it..."
Turkey - Henry Kissinger recently noted that they are the only successful, representative government in the Middle East, although it took a military dictator to create it and several military coups to keep it on course. Their parliment did not see our goals as building a democracy next door. I do agree that they tried to blackmail us for staging and fly over rights.
Hank is getting old. Not thinking as clearly.
The European countries you listed provided a platoon and no more than a couple of companies of troops, all in civil affairs, military police, medical, engineering, NBC, logistics and transport roles. Mostly non-combat outside of some AA units.
So what is your point. Without us and the UK, NATO means sh*t?
As far as German commitment goes, it is about their political philosophy regarding any military action, not economics. Their economic situation is impacting the country, but no German president will send troops anywhere without a really strong case.
Like I said, I talk to german people. Not textbooks
I'm not being "silly" about the stated reasons for the invasion; revisit the tape of Colin Powell at the UN. Personally, I think Bush revealed a lot when he blurted out to a reporter to remember that Saddam tried to assassinate his father in Kuwait. I think it was a personal vendetta, and the Neocons have had it out for Saddam since day one, as Richard Clark stated.
Richard Clark had a book to sell. I'm not trying to sound like a bush Patsie, but clark has another agenda. But I reiterate, and will take it a step further, if you thought this was about WMD you are not only silly, but you are also [fill in the blank]
As for admitting mistakes or changing policies, I think this administration is very rigid on so many levels and on so many policies. It takes a real man to admit a mistake; it's the insecure that stick to their hidebound positions.
Actually, as I have stated, the interesting thing is that they have changed positions and strategies without admitting mistakes. Like I said, I'm no patsie, I just find it interesting.
And back to how this originally started, Newsweek had a great post-mortem on the election, an entire issue. It makes me wonder how much of the election was a combination of disciplined organization and attack ads on the Bush side, and Kerry's undisciplined, disorganized approach and inability to inspire people. Unfortunately, Kerry just did not get enough people fired up; it was mostly ABB ("anyone but Bush"). People claim it was Bush's "moral values" but historically the Republicans pander to those people then forget about them after they're in power, throwing out sure-to-lose items like a gay marriage ban ammendment. "Well, we tried but those people in the Senate just wouldn't pass it..."
Kerry just sucked as a candidate. He had no platform, no solutions. He didn't believe a word that came out of his on mouth. If He did, maybe someone besides the anyone but Bush crew would have voted for him.
Hank is getting old. Not thinking as clearly.
The European countries you listed provided a platoon and no more than a couple of companies of troops, all in civil affairs, military police, medical, engineering, NBC, logistics and transport roles. Mostly non-combat outside of some AA units.
So what is your point. Without us and the UK, NATO means sh*t?
As far as German commitment goes, it is about their political philosophy regarding any military action, not economics. Their economic situation is impacting the country, but no German president will send troops anywhere without a really strong case.
Like I said, I talk to german people. Not textbooks
I'm not being "silly" about the stated reasons for the invasion; revisit the tape of Colin Powell at the UN. Personally, I think Bush revealed a lot when he blurted out to a reporter to remember that Saddam tried to assassinate his father in Kuwait. I think it was a personal vendetta, and the Neocons have had it out for Saddam since day one, as Richard Clark stated.
Richard Clark had a book to sell. I'm not trying to sound like a bush Patsie, but clark has another agenda. But I reiterate, and will take it a step further, if you thought this was about WMD you are not only silly, but you are also [fill in the blank]
As for admitting mistakes or changing policies, I think this administration is very rigid on so many levels and on so many policies. It takes a real man to admit a mistake; it's the insecure that stick to their hidebound positions.
Actually, as I have stated, the interesting thing is that they have changed positions and strategies without admitting mistakes. Like I said, I'm no patsie, I just find it interesting.
And back to how this originally started, Newsweek had a great post-mortem on the election, an entire issue. It makes me wonder how much of the election was a combination of disciplined organization and attack ads on the Bush side, and Kerry's undisciplined, disorganized approach and inability to inspire people. Unfortunately, Kerry just did not get enough people fired up; it was mostly ABB ("anyone but Bush"). People claim it was Bush's "moral values" but historically the Republicans pander to those people then forget about them after they're in power, throwing out sure-to-lose items like a gay marriage ban ammendment. "Well, we tried but those people in the Senate just wouldn't pass it..."
Kerry just sucked as a candidate. He had no platform, no solutions. He didn't believe a word that came out of his on mouth. If He did, maybe someone besides the anyone but Bush crew would have voted for him.
I'm sorry. What election were you talking about? The fear monger I recalled was Kerry...talking about Chuck Rangels Draft, talking about how bad of a job our troops are doing. Threatinging to sink us deaper into hillarycare, etc, etc. Threats of increased taxes. Gosh it goes on and on. Get over it.DMC wrote:The Bush campaign successfully scared the living crap out of middle America...
riiiight...... OK.... So Chaney DIDNT say vote for GWB or suffer another terrorist attack??CAPBOY wrote:I'm sorry. What election were you talking about? The fear monger I recalled was Kerry...talking about Chuck Rangels Draft, talking about how bad of a job our troops are doing. Threatinging to sink us deaper into hillarycare, etc, etc. Threats of increased taxes. Gosh it goes on and on. Get over it.DMC wrote:The Bush campaign successfully scared the living crap out of middle America...
Nevermind...
I love when you say never mind........DMC wrote:riiiight...... OK.... So Chaney DIDNT say vote for GWB or suffer another terrorist attack??CAPBOY wrote:I'm sorry. What election were you talking about? The fear monger I recalled was Kerry...talking about Chuck Rangels Draft, talking about how bad of a job our troops are doing. Threatinging to sink us deaper into hillarycare, etc, etc. Threats of increased taxes. Gosh it goes on and on. Get over it.DMC wrote:The Bush campaign successfully scared the living crap out of middle America...
Nevermind...
Just say BRING IT ON LOL!!!!!
Don't recall that, but I wouldn't be surprised. I don't pay attention to the cheap rhetoric, especially since I am convinced there will be another attack.DMC wrote:riiiight...... OK.... So Chaney DIDNT say vote for GWB or suffer another terrorist attack??CAPBOY wrote:I'm sorry. What election were you talking about? The fear monger I recalled was Kerry...talking about Chuck Rangels Draft, talking about how bad of a job our troops are doing. Threatinging to sink us deaper into hillarycare, etc, etc. Threats of increased taxes. Gosh it goes on and on. Get over it.DMC wrote:The Bush campaign successfully scared the living crap out of middle America...
Nevermind...