|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 03/18/2003 : 13:01:55 [Permalink]
|
Most if not all of those countries are supplying material support, i.e. training, medical supplies, equipment, and indeed some are sending in troops.
Keep in mind, this is in direct response to your statement:
quote:
Wow! What a huge show of support! Hitler had a coalition, too if I recall. Japan and Italy.
Let's keep those goal posts defined and stationary, eh? |
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2003 : 13:09:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
It wasn't ridiculous. If it wasn't a fact it would be but seeing that it is a fact it stands.
Whether it's a fact or not that these countries happen to be majority Caucasian is not the point.
Your implications in typing it are what are ridiculous. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2003 : 14:05:38 [Permalink]
|
My implications were not accidental nor is it a coincidence that these 3 countries are alone in invading Iraq apart from Albanians serving espresso. I'm sorry but I am not buying the coalition deal from Powell. he has discredited himself and the USA more than enough these last few months and this latest stretching of the truth to create an imaginary coalition doesn't cut it for me.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2003 : 14:11:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The State Department released the list of 30 countries, one of which, Japan, was identified as only a post-conflict member of the coalition.
Spokesman Richard Boucher said some of them "may put troops on the ground," while others would take on other roles, such as assisting in a defense against the use of chemical or biological weapons or permitting allied combat planes to fly over their territory.
Boucher did not specify which countries would send troops to fight. But Britain is known to have contributed about 45,000 troops, Australia has offered 2,000 and Poland, 200. Albania has offered 70 soldiers for noncombat roles and Romania contributed 278 non-combat experts in demining, in chemical and biological decontamination and military police.
No Arab country was listed by the State Department. But Boucher declined to say none supported the United States against Iraq.
I rest my case! Flying over a country means they have joined the coalition? Give me a fricken break! We've already seen the quid pro quo the US has used to get such concessions. Callng this a coalition isn't just a reach. It's bullshit and you should know better.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2003 : 16:19:49 [Permalink]
|
My question is and has always been: What the fuck's the hurry? Saddam has at least appeared to be coopereating. It makes more sense to me to send in enough inspectors to flip every rock in the country and find what he has, if anything, and destroy it. Saddam is a dreadful fellow and I'd love to read of his slow and painful demise, but killing who knows how many Iraqi civilians, not to mention our own troops, seems to be a sloppy way to go about getting the bastard.
I wonder; does Bush really give a scab off a rat's ass about Saddam? Or is this the beginning of a take-over of control of the Persian Gulf? There's been so much pure bullshit coming out of this pathetic administration that it's hard to be sure of anything.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2003 : 16:30:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What the fuck's the hurry?
That is the magic question isn't it. It's all about politics. He set a 48 hour deadline despite it being a full moon and with all those troops packed into boats off the Turkish coast. A prudent man, a man that cared about his troops might have waited a few more weeks at the very least. Bush has no time to worry about little details like the lives of his own troops. It's now or never and Bush picked now despite everything.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2003 : 05:44:46 [Permalink]
|
There doesn't seem to be any grounds, for believing Iraq under Saddam will not aid any force that is willing to attack US, with whatever weapons he has.., now. We've kicked a sleeping dog, and damned well better finish the job on him, or pay dearly in the not so distant future, IMO.
".., address the issue at hand instead of continuously beating the irrelevant "hyposcrisy" drum?" With all respects, think the "hyposcrisy" of the current administration, and perhaps even the republican party's leadership, is at the heart of the issue. The methods it employs to acchive it's ends, seems to me, questionable at best and just plain radical at the least.
They don't seem to really trust the public, that they want to lead, as judged by their resistance to "transparentcy" in their governance of the Free. As well as their willingness to restrict traditional liberties, in the name of all things, Patriotism. Find such 'hyposcrisy' very relevant.
It seems to me, that if Iraq violated the terms of peace for Gulf War I, we would have had the right to enforce it. That would be so without another trip to the UN at all, but that's me. Would it be in our best interest to do so, is another matter.
Found this Op-Ed piece pretty clear in laying out the path to the present, as well as articulating some of the real cost to our nation, for this adventure. Warning, it is long but a well written article, IMO.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?0sl=-10#BODY
(Hey, looks as if this war is going to last a while. Can't be silent forever, inspite of popular requests.) 
Spelling SIC! |
 |
| Edited by - NubiWan on 03/30/2003 05:47:36 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
