Page 13 of 21 FirstFirst ... 389101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 419
  1. #241  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    LOL, I love the Bob thing. Very Funny.

    The "respected internationally" thing scares me too. What does that mean exactly. That we promise not to do anything until everyone else says it's ok? Thats a load of complete BS. We'llhave our hands tied behind our back forever. And then how much respect will we have.

    "look at the pussie Americans, they cant do anything without popular approval, what a bunch of wimps"

    Ya I want that..NOT!
    What makes you think that is what is meant with it??

    You can be strong and respected.. It just means you consider the other countries too and come with a sollution that is respected by them..
    The Bush approach is the good old cowboy 'my way or the highway'... thats fine if you want that, but dont come crying about the terrorist hate us because of out freedom... no they dont, they hate you for a number of things.. arrogance is a big one of them..
    (for the record I dont approve terrorism, but playing innocent routine I sometimes hear makes me allmost as sick..)
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  2. #242  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    seriously! just release the medical records, kerry! if you're in the right, then bush has nothing to go on. release them and let the chips falll where they may. this will be interesting to watch.
    I agree, but I guess he is waiting for the right timing or something...Or the swiftboat guys are right... all we can do now is speculate..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  3. #243  
    I really wonder how different things would be if we just waited for everyone to agree on what to do about these terrorists before doing anything.
    would it be too late? as we sit back and do our diplomatic dance with nations who claim to be our allies (yet stall like an old chevy when It comes to making active decisions), would there have been another terrorist attack while we stagnated and did nothing?
    would al qaeda view our lack of response due to tiresome deliberation as weakness and fear of public disapproval, thereby encouraging them to attack again?
    yes we do want public approval and appropriate action but you can't always wait for other people (nations) when its a matter of YOUR national security.
    time will tell if what we did will have made us safer or not. short term maybe things don't at all look rosey, but long term its possible we have started to tear into the al qaeda threat in a proactive way, as opposed to just sitting back -waiting for all to join us and making sure no one is offended by what we do.
  4. #244  
    The "Coalition of the Willing" leaves the US providing over 84% of the troops and the rest of the coalition contributing over 15%.

    There are 55 countries listed on the site mentioned (http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html). If the 54 countries (not counting the US) were evenly sharing the 15% burden than each country would be contributing about .3% of the effort. Some coalition.

    Finally, you may notice previously strong allies such as France and Germany are missing.
  5. #245  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    The "Coalition of the Willing" leaves the US providing over 84% of the troops and the rest of the coalition contributing over 15%.

    There are 55 countries listed on the site mentioned (http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html). If the 54 countries (not counting the US) were evenly sharing the 15% burden than each country would be contributing about .3% of the effort. Some coalition.

    Finally, you may notice previously strong allies such as France and Germany are missing.
    And they are missing because invading Iraq screwed up their business deals with Saddam. That been explained plenty in the media. And 55 is hardly alone, no matter how the troops are supplied.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  6. #246  
    There is a lot of hatred going around in politics these days.

    People hated Clinton for his sex life and his statements (or lack of) about it.

    The people I know who hate Bush hate his economic, environmental, and foreign policies.

    Seems better to want someone out of office because you disagree with their policies rather than their personal sex life.
    Last edited by DHAnderson; 08/24/2004 at 12:17 AM. Reason: Fix a typo
  7. #247  
    Woof,

    I'm not saying 55 is 0. I'm saying that on average the input of each of the 55 is about .3%
  8. #248  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    Woof,

    I'm not saying 55 is 0. I'm saying that on average the input of each of the 55 is about .3%
    So what! Has there every been a debate or question about the percentage of troops. Not that I have ever heard. Plenty about us going it alone, but not anything like

    "well there may be other countries involved but each has only provided .3% of the total troops. George Bush is such a lousy president. John Kerry could have easily gotten at least .5% percent from each of our allies!"

    It's funny, now that we have shown that we were not alone, you have to find another way to bag on the whole thing. Absolutely hilarious. Almost as bad as the Swiss definition of alone. Any excuse to hate Bush.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  9. #249  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    I quoted Woof's number in my last post and thought I should back it up somehow. I believe we have overstated it. Here is very interesting link, which may have been posted here before, that sheds light on just how "totally alone" we were/are...

    [HTML]http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html[/HTML]
    http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html#list3
    Interesting that Holland has a little helmet, because officially they just gave moral support and no troops (in 2003)... later on troops have been send (against the will of the majority of the dutch population BTW)
    Also Australia has played a mayor contribution but the figures show it as a small one...
    Not sure how accurate those figures are..

    I also found http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3628959.stm
    The Netherlands dont even show on that one...

    Also a lot of countries send support/troops just to stay on the good side of the US...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  10. #250  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    So what! Has there every been a debate or question about the percentage of troops. Not that I have ever heard. Plenty about us going it alone, but not anything like

    "well there may be other countries involved but each has only provided .3% of the total troops. George Bush is such a lousy president. John Kerry could have easily gotten at least .5% percent from each of our allies!"

    It's funny, now that we have shown that we were not alone, you have to find another way to bag on the whole thing. Absolutely hilarious. Almost as bad as the Swiss definition of alone. Any excuse to hate Bush.
    The debate on wether or not the US went alone is not a sementic one like you make it.. if you look at it litterally you are right, but practical they were pretty much on their own with a bit of support from others (who had strong interests in keeping the US gov happy). It was nothing like a real coalition of 55 countries... you've got to atleast see that...

    As far as the % Kerry would have organized.. I'd like to think that would be 0% since he wouldnt have attacked Iraq in a pre-emptive strike..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  11. #251  
    Treobk, you've really shot your argument in the foot by mentioning Al Qaida and 'terrorist nations'. The US had a lot more support around the world, and so did your president, when that is what you were doing. It was when he decided to invade Iraq that the dissension arose, because Iraq had naff all to do with Al Qaida.
    Why would you want other countries to make strong deci8
    Animo et Fide
  12. #252  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    The debate on wether or not the US went alone is not a sementic one like you make it.. if you look at it litterally you are right, but practical they were pretty much on their own with a bit of support from others (who had strong interests in keeping the US gov happy). It was nothing like a real coalition of 55 countries... you've got to atleast see that...

    As far as the % Kerry would have organized.. I'd like to think that would be 0% since he wouldnt have attacked Iraq in a pre-emptive strike..
    Hmm the dutch have the same definition of alone.

    Look why cant you accept the facts. We didnt go in alone. Stop splitting hairs. "it was a coalition, but not a REAL coalition" Give me a break. The facts speak for themselves. Why cant you just accept that?

    As far as anyone "keeping the US happy" thats BS too. Allies support each other. Especially when they feel the same way about a situation. You talk like we held guns to their heads.

    Typical liberal. All the numbers are plain as day but nope still wont see it because you just know there more to it. It's no fun talking to you when you cant even see the forest because the trees are in your way.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  13. #253  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Why do you keep insisting we went into Iraq alone when we did not?
    When it comes to being killed in Iraq, the US are 88 % alone: Of 1,095 coalition deaths to date, 964 were Americans, 65 Britons, six Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, one Estonian, one Hungarian, 19 Italians, one Latvian, 10 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and eight Ukrainians, in the war in Iraq as of August 23, 2004. If you prefer a graphical breakdown, click here.

    That is what matters, not how many nations (90? Guesswork, Woof?) sent a handfull of soldiers. That is why I wrote the US are "almost totally alone in Iraq" - BTW, please stop misquoting me.
    Last edited by clulup; 08/24/2004 at 03:33 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. #254  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    I think that target is the result of a generation of middle eastern children being "taught" to hate the west and America because of our blind support of Israel. We were asleep at the wheel while this was happening.
    No US president has ever supported Israel as blindly and without any reservation as Bush, even though there was hardly ever an Israeli government that would have deserved more reservation. That is another point why I think Bush is plain stupid. I fail to see how you can be aware of the blind support of Israel and still be in favour of Bush? You mention the "Ugly American of the sixties" but you support the present day Ugly American?
    Would be surprised how much he does care what the rest of the world thinks.
    If I were Woof, I would say something like "Oh yeah?? How do you know, did Bush whisper it into your ear?". But I am not Woof so I don't.
    Last edited by clulup; 08/24/2004 at 03:29 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15. #255  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    I've seen nothing but anti-Kerry ads. Oh, except for that one about the number of Democracies participating in the Olympics, which, I have to tell you, I'm still trying to figure out. Can't quite put my finger on why, but that ad just makes me feel—well, weird.

    So a thousand US troops and countless civilians die in Iraq, and that's great, because now there are two more democracies in Athens?
    So Bush is trying to tell the US people that Afghanistan and Iraq are democracies now? He must think his voters are terribly ignorant, because who would believe Afghanistan and Iraq are democracies now??
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16. #256  
    I'd argue that the US aren't alone Clulup, the UK controls a good chunk of the southern section of the country. I don't like the fact that France/Germany/Russia aren't involved, to say nothing of the surrounding Arab countries, and I don't think there was any real justification to go to war, however the US isn't alone.
    I heard an interesting item on the news about how many 'security consultants' (aka mercenaries) are employed in Iraq at the moment. Even war, or maybe peace-keeping, is becoming privatised.
    Animo et Fide
  17. #257  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    I'd argue that the US aren't alone Clulup, the UK controls a good chunk of the southern section of the country.
    I agree. That is why I wrote "ALMOST TOTALLY alone", meaning for me, in this case, 88% alone. I am willing though to downgrade my statement to "rather alone" or "largely alone".
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18. #258  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    When it comes to being killed in Iraq, the US are 88 % alone: Of 1,095 coalition deaths to date, 964 were Americans, 65 Britons, six Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, one Estonian, one Hungarian, 19 Italians, one Latvian, 10 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and eight Ukrainians, in the war in Iraq as of August 23, 2004....
    OK clulp, how many more countries would it take for you to concede that we did not go it alone? If France, Germany, and Russia had joined us would that have done the trick? Funny thing is that if just 4 countries, England, Germany, France, and Russia and no others had joined us no one would dismiss the coalition. 4 Countries, a coalition... 34 countries not. The reality is that this whole arguement is based primarily on just 2 countries, Germany and France, turning their backs on us. Go ahead and add Russia if you want, I still think the whole arguement is myopic at best.

    Given your numbers, if those 3 countries had joined us we still would have suffered the brunt of the casualties and rightfully so. Assuming that Germany, France, and Russia contributed the same troop strengths that England did, by the numbers perhaps we would have suffered 195 fewer losses, and still been 58% alone as you put it.

    I hate joining you in this discussion, however, as I think your concern with the body count devalues 130 lives given in support of you and me from countries who do not have any where near the stake in the war on terror as we do. I do not really think you intended to do this, but this discussion takes us there.
  19. #259  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    No US president has ever supported Israel as blindly and without any reservation as Bush, even though there was hardly ever an Israeli government that would have deserved more reservation. That is another point why I think Bush is plain stupid.
    The United States has "blindly" supported Israel since it's inception. Every administration has shared equally in our support of their existence and actions. If anything the Bush administration has done more to curb Israeli responses to Palestinian suicide bombers than most previous administrations.


    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I fail to see how you can be aware of the blind support of Israel and still be in favour of Bush?
    I did refer to it as blind support but you assume that I disaprove of this support. I wish that we could find a compromise to that situation but short of that I believe that our support of Issreal is an obligation and obligations often require "blind" support. I actually believe President Bush has been more even handed in this than most previous administrations. But, this is a topic for another thread. I hope we can agree to disagree here and just let it drop.


    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    You mention the "Ugly American of the sixties" but you support the present day Ugly American?
    "The Ugly American of the 60s" was perception of us which was the result of an arrogant and better than you are attitude we Americans garnered in the years after World War II. In th 60s we looked at ourselves in the mirror and did not like what we saw. I think that In our attempt to fix things a good percentage of our population morphed into a kind of self hate that has become the blame America first crowd, most of whom consider themselves liberals.

    I do not believe that the "present day Ugly American" you refer to exists. If you want to call us that for standing up to our enemies and doing what we must to protect our way of life, you are free to do so. We lost 3,000 people in a single day. We have every right to insure that this never happens to us again. That does not in any way equate to the "ugly American of the 60s".
  20. #260  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    I hate joining you in this discussion, however, as I think your concern with the body count devalues 130 lives given in support of you and me from countries who do not have any where near the stake in the war on terror as we do. I do not really think you intended to do this, but this discussion takes us there.
    Indeed I did not have any intention of devaluing any lives given, neither US nor other lives.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)

Posting Permissions