He forgot Poland!

Why should I when Bush didn't have to prove there was WMD before invading Iraq?


I already gave you my reasoning for thinking the way I do.

 

I deleted my earlier post since it largely repeated what was said by others. For your information, Tonga is listed as a coalition member here: http://www.slate.com/id/2107914/sidebar/2107920/
But you are merely being argumentative. For your purposes, replace Tonga with the Solomon Islands.

 

spin spin spin spin spin *unplugs you*

this topic is not about WMDs, its about john kerry and him crapping on our alliances.


So, prove they were bribed and coerced.

 

and you have not proved how anyone was bribed or coerced, so chop chop

 

The iraqi's that are working for the USA, are actually doing it because they are broke. Do you ever watch real news. I was watching Al Jazeera, and I hear the story in Arabic from real Iraqi's....These people are poor, and need to get food on the table. However, less and less Iraqi's are working for the USA each day. These people are forced to do the dirtier work, and are deserting because they cannot fight their own brothers. They are being treated like crap.

 

first off, let me say that the iraqis work for their own government, not the US.

now, let me have a few seconds to laugh becuase you called al jazeera real news(as opposed to american/british news i suppose?)


Dont we all work to bring in money? Last time i checked, most people didnt work because they find fulfilment in their life from sitting in a desk or working in a mill.

As for their numbers dwindling? I dont know, thats up to the iraqi interim government to fill their ranks.

 

WTF is your malfunction? I already addressed your post.

Do you know how to have intelligent conversation rather than ranting "prove it" to anyone who disagrees with your opinion?

And I made no spin here....I simply was pointing out that it is strange that a president can get away with going to war before proving that Saddam had WMD...but you are all worked up about ME proving Kerry's statement that we have a coalition of the bribed and coerced.

I gave you my reasoning for why I think the way I do. So shut up already.

(and I know you can go on and on like this for pages, so I am not going to humor you on this topic anymore)

 

my god, the horror of someone asking you back up something you say, THE HORROR! What an evil person i am, god, why dont you just shoot me? Seriously, asking for proof of a claim is like the lowest of the low

"I think that Kerry is speaking the truth when he says it is a coalition of the coerced and bribed. It doesn't matter if it pisses anyone off. The truth sometimes hurts.

Its obvious these countries don't want to be involved. And I mean the country not just the leaders...Their people protested the war right along with us"

So, because the leaders went to war with us or funded or whatever, they had to be bribed or coerced, that is your logic, correct? Obviously, they lack convictions and they are doing it because we are threatening them or lining their bank account, well, thats interesting. God forbid, someone actually believes something is right when the US does.

You have not proved a simple claim, you have used the worst logic ever to try and back up your claims. I can understand that, i'm a reasonable person. Afterall, it is far easier than having to back up something you say.

Why should anyone have to backup anything they say? Its up to the other person to prove it wrong, right?

 

Megara, people who say bullsh*t like that shouldn't complain about spin. That is spin.

Secondly, I am not going to show you a cancelled check with the note "bribe for participating in coalition in it".

But it was widely known that aid packages were being offered around, with Turkey offered the biggest one, although in the end they didn't take it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844258/posts

The sad think is I think you are well aware that all kinds of diplomatic carrots and sticks were bandied about to get small countries to join. You just feel like being an argumentative jackass. I mean to you honestly believe the Marshall Islands, population 57,000 and entirely dependent on US aid, joined the coalition based on their convictions?

 

Yes, aid packages were offered, most notably to turkey, Do you know why? War costs money.

lets look at turkey shall we?

" On the economic front, the country is coming out of its worst recession since 1945 and a war is likely to cost the government more than $10bn.

The US has offered to help out but the amount being discussed is only between $4bn and $5bn. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2646743.stm

They stand to lose if htey participate in the war, of course we should help our allies out. This is bribing? Aid packages are bribing?

Of course a country like the marshall isladns will stand beside us, we did administer that country for 40 some odd years, and we still have a military base there.

Why is so shocking to you, that people might agree with george bush and the US on iraq? Of course, the only way we could get people was to bribe them.

But still, that requires you to prove something.

edit: we paid very little for gulf war 1, were we being bribed to join the coalition in 1991? Last time i checked, we spearheaded that campaign, and others footed the bill, but i guess by your logic, we were bribed.

 

Tell me Megara, why do simply believe that Osama was behind 911? When did this admin ever present (in and substantive and court of law worthy fashion) solid evidence to that fact? Unless youve been asleep or simply accepting every snippet that was tossed out at glaringly crucial moments of declining confidence for the administration, you would recognise that no such body of evidence has ever been produced. Accordingly for thousands who have been subsequently rounded up in foreign lands and held without trial, again No evidence of actual guilt has been forthcoming.

Yet you readily accept that paradigm as delivered to the masses by Fox News and the rest of the sycophantic and unquestioning corporate media mouthpieces because you:

1. truly do not have much understanding of international politics and the dependency nature of our relations with most developing world nations,

2. buy into the myth that our government is inherently "good" and thus could not possibly act against its own people or our national interests in the pursuit of their own elite interests,

3. clearly do not have any intention of taking the time and making the effort necessary to research the multiplicity of foreign sources which would inevitably show you how misinformed our domestic population is compared with the rest of the international community.

You really dont want PROOF, you want to hear what suits your ideological preconceptions and requires the least effort on your part. Sadly the reality of what is going on encompasses interconnected policies and events spanning decades (as far back as members of this current admin's own careers span) which cannot be conveniently summed up for you in simplistic Fox News styled snippets between commercial breaks.

Perhaps if there was ever any indication that you question anything handed to you by mainstream misinformation sources one might be tempted to take the time. But quips like "tin foil brigade" only confirm your ideological blindness and frankly, I for one am perfectly content to let you live in your spin fed delusions until you wake to find out that every warning handed to you was true all along. Willful ignorance and arrogant defense of it deserves nothing more.

 

Osama bin laden has nothing to do with this topic or iraq, So lets disregard that. If you want to start another topic, we can go at it there, but not here.


Again, i am told to do research when someone else makes a claim. Maybe some of you dont quite understand how 1) debating works and 2) making a point works. When someone makes a claim, they have to back it up. Saying "prove its not wrong" or "research it yourself" doesnt hold up.


This is the equivalent of me saying, "Kerry killed a kid." prove that it's wrong.

 

Well said, but don't expect a rational answer

 

Ah, so you ask for evidence that we bribed someone and then you turn around and say that offering them money doesn't count. What a load of crap.

 

I dont.

 

hello! compensation! trying to help offset the cost is bribing?!

So, were we bribed into gulf war 1?

 

Your white house site of course is going to be biased.

But ignoring that fact, can you please provide how many of their troops are over there?

There are 46 countries that have made "some sort" of contribution, but it couldve been as little as "political support" or some intelligence. And I'm not counting the ones with barley anybody over there, anyone with half a brain knows that's for show only. Also can you provide how many of their troops have died?


As for the Osama post, it is very relevant to the Iraq situation really. Since the Iraq invasion was the "war on terror". Stop dodging posts.

Finally, what the fuck do we need other countries for if we're just going to compensate them? The point of having other countries is so they take up some of the burden.

 

america had 135k
Britain had a high of 40k
poland has 2400 and comands a group of 9100 troops from foreign nations

spain sent 1400(edit, now of course withdrawn before someone jumps on me about this..NOTE THE PAST TENSE)

ukraine 1600

bulgaria 485

3000 italian

2000 australians

500 from portugal

550 from japan

440 thailand

100 from the phillippines

south korea said it will send 3600

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3628959.stm

we made up aruodn 75% of the troops this time..

and now for the original gulf war....

The U.S. had more than 500,000 troops in the Persian Gulf War, while the non-U.S. coalition forces equaled roughly 160,000, or 24 percent, of all forces. Here are some details about the forces in the Gulf:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/

we made up 76% of the total troops used.... hrmm

So where is the difference? The cost.

Again, osama bin laden has nothing to do with kerry badmouthing our allies. Thats what this thread IS about...kerry badmouthing our allies..it has nothing to do with osama bin laden.

licherish is great at causing grand diversions(ooh, thanks kerry) instead of answering questions.

 

One gets the impression that one's time is being wasted.

The war would cost Turkey whether or not they chose to join the coalition, in the form of lost trade and tourism. The aid, however, would only come from joining the coalition. Again, I'm sure you know this unfortunate fact and are merely hoping we don't.

I have not said all coalition countries joined due to bribes. So it is not "shocking" to me that people agree with Bush and the US on Iraq. After all, I do. I just don't feel the need to resort to bullshit rationalisations and mindless argumentativeness like you do.

 

LOL That site is hilarious...excellent...as Mr. Burns would say.

PEace