andy.. no building relatinsihps isnt a bad thing.. im saying just the opposite... yes we may have done the major decision making etc.. im just worried about not giving credit where credit is due.. and that hurting relationships with other countries... if we keep ignorning the british etc who supported us... we could very well alienate that government etc.. i know we are the one who lead most of this up.. but it's not JUST us. there are other people helping us too.. and if i was a leader of one of those other countries.. i'd be mad if no one gave me any credit and just acted like it was the united states
andymoon.. I think the wording causes confusion sometimes.. when people say "unilaterally led".. I don't have much problem because we were the country that did the leading.. it's just when they only say "unilateral" and not mention led or anything.. where I think the problem arises.. because I take that as saying we are the only ones in the war.
I am just quoting John Kerry himself. Meet the Press April 18, 1971 "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals." I am not aware of Bush calling himself a deserter.
John Kerry talking about war crimes and how wide spread they were in Viet Nam, was referring to free fire zones. Free fire zones did exist, were ordered by officers, and large numbers of troops participated in them. The higher ups didn't consider them war crimes. So some that partcipated in them don't consider themselves as having committed war crimes. Kerry cited the Geneva convention as a reason why they were war crimes. If, like Kerry, you agree that free fire zones are war crimes, then he was absolutely correct talking about himself participating in war crimes, and that war crimes were ordered and condoned all the way up the command chain. Huge numbers of those in combat participated.
Andy, they pay for whatever we sell them. They are not one of the countries we are getting to go to Iraq because of promises of military or other aid, or promises of closer relationships more beneficial down the road, or, as in the case of the East Europeans, a desire to prove themselves to the rest of Europe as independent actors, worthy of notice on the European Union stage. The leaders of Britain and Australia made a political decision that will, no doubt, cost them heavily the next time they have elections. That's a bit different. The idea, however, that this is some "grand coalition of the willing", is ridiculous. This is not the Gulf War. We have the overwhelming number of troops, are paying the overwhelming amount of the costs, and the handful of countries participating, for whatever their reasons, in no way, shape or form resembles the support of the first Gulf War. To say that it does is, pardon me, just foolish. Come up with other arguments to support the invasion of Iraq, people, but this "grand support" is not one of them. It holds no water. Oh, and those that support us don't lose sleep or particularly care about the thoughts of a large segment of the American population regarding whether this as a colossal blunder. They worry about the even larger percentage of their own populations who oppose this war and occupation
Andy- If it was a UN force that went into Iraq how much different would the war be? Everytime the UN acts here is what happens: 1. Some foreign government's top general is put in charge of the UN forces as a figure head. 2. US troops make up about 80-85% of the force, with Britian taking another chunk and a few other countries sending over a handful of troops (pretty similar to what we have their now). So yes from a PR move it may have been better to get everyone together (but France and Russia had their own financial interests on why they wouldn't go in anyways so that was not going to happen), but in the end it would not have effected the amount of troops the US sent over or ultimately the number of troops we have lost. And if 95% of the world is against us that's fine. Just be aware the 1st time a terrorist hits one of those 95% what they will do, come begging to the US for financial and military assistance.
<b>Originally posted by andymoon Again, if you can find quotes that are contrary, please post them. I don't have time to do your research for you..</b> Why bother... you didn't!
Yes, I did. I watched every interview I could find, I watched the debates, and I TiVo anything having to do with John Kerry so that I CAN be informed. If you cannot actually come up with a quote, it is not my job to look for it. You asserted your view and then told me to look it up if I didn't believe you. I don't believe you because I HAVE seen the interviews with Kerry and did NOT see anything that resembles Kerry painting the ENTIRE military as guilty of war crimes. Gwanie posted the quote from Kerry back in the day and I will give it again... Meet the Press April 18, 1971 "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals." Kerry was saying that the higher ups that ordered free fire zones should, by the letter of the law (the Geneva Conventions), be considered war criminals. He made no sweeping statements about the entire military, he never claimed that every single soldier was guilty of committing atrocities (the word he later says he regretted using), and you have not come up with anything to indicate that he DID say anything like that. Prove me wrong if you can.
First of all, it would have the legitimacy of the entire world. With the whole world behind us, there would be no questions about where the missing WMDs are because, presumably, we would have had to go in for humanitarian reasons rather than on the erroneous claims of WMDs. The reconstruction contracts would be distributed to companies other than the US and the coalition, speeding the process and probably cutting costs. Al Qaeda wouldn't have nearly as good a recruiting tool as it would be the UN and not the "evil" US. There are many ways this would be different and most of them I could think of would be positive. And instead they got Bremer. How is that different? Except that other countries WOULD be significantly involved. They would provide some of the resources, some of the troops, but the biggest benefit is that they are not the country that the radical Islamists see as the "Great Satan." That would give the new government MUCH more legitimacy from the start and may very well have kept Al Sadr from rallying troops to his cause. France and Russia would not have had a choice if the weapons inspectors had found ANYTHING. The real point is that for Bush, it was now or never and he had to invade BEFORE the weapons inspectors finished up in order for any of the WMD claims to stick. AS many insiders have said, Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq from day one and when 9/11 happened, he had his chance. He started a war based on mistaken, exaggerated, or just plain made up "intelligence," and needs to be taken to task for that monumental mistake. Might does not make right. Just because we have the strongest military, we do not have the right to do whatever we want in the world.
I agree that those two countries were not coerced or bribed to anywhere near the extent of some of the smaller countries, but I am sure that part of the negotiations for those two to join the coalition was the possibility of reconstruction contracts and the like.
France and Russia would have NEVER, EVER agreed to it. They had too many financial deals with Iraq. Iraq didn't allow the weapon inspectors to see everythign they wanted on a timely basis and that was the justification. It was part of the contract, but several countries would rather look out for their own interests than a contract. And without France and Russia the UN would never had acted. We would still be trying to get it resolved today.
If one knows he can not make everyone happy, but still be honest enough to tell what he thinks. I wouldn't see that as a bad person. I understand those soldiers might be upset, coz they are sent to war, but find out there are people at home don't support the war. In my humble opinion, that's just the beauty of the democracy, you don't actually have to be in one voice.
All you've done is lift a quote from here. I was jabbing at your requirement of me to provide "quotes" while you didn't bother-- as if "quotes" were the be-all end-all of everything. I'm citing the CNN presents hour-long presenation. It's there. If you don't believe me.. fine. I have better things to do with my time than dig up stuff on Kerry. I'm only reporting what the network reported. In the recent interview I saw he didn't limit his regret to the use of the word "atrocity."
Your view of this is all so jaded. Other nations would only join us if bribed. Oh, I know where you get that... the premier nations who wouldn't join us were already into Saddam's back pocket so it is reasonable to assume...
Here's a little gem for you Andy: http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com/ John Kerry abandoned our husbands, sons, fathers, and brothers in favor of trade and normalization of relations with Vietnam. His actions paved the way for the further abandonment of POWs and MIAs from World War II, the Korean War, and the Cold War. John Kerry, as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, ordered the destruction of committee documents, blocked avenues of investigation, and misrepresented progress on the POW/MIA issue to justify lifting of the trade embargo against Vietnam.
