This is what Im talking about....more and more people are angry at the govt. and the crooked politicians.

Im not saying that this was a good thing, but expect to see more of this stuff coming.

I say this is reason good enough for all good Americans to get off their fat assssssses and bomb some third-world country shiiiiitless.

That will learn them.

Why break a straight streak, I ask.

Hesus, I hate ****ing American international politics. Just watch, an innocent country will be razed, and Americans will clap their ****ing hands.

Dont know what in the world you're talking about, but it sounds funky!!

If sure that is exactly what those people in Iraq and Afghanistan said should be done to the United states years before 9/11.They got what they wanted and should not be surprised when violence comes back for payback.

I am talking: Iraq, which complied with US and UN requests to get their sites checked, and after 9/11 they got razed, on false pretenses as it has been shown by the US press years later.

I am talking: Afghanistan, where the forces are doing nothing but killing people without advancing any of their objectives -- the only one that I know of is catching Obama Bin Laden.

Both wars were destructive in these foreign countries; the entire moder civilization of Iraq was practically destroyed. The country is a wasteland. There was no reason go in, G.W.B. ordered that war only coz he was angry and so were the American people. People who have good weapons and a good army, will attack some other country when angered. Reasons to attack can always be manufactured, and they were too, in this case. 9/11 was NOT the reason to attack Iraq. The reason was coz Americans wanted to see blood after 9/11.

Did Iraq or its leader instigate 9/11? No. Did America raze Iraq right away to retaliate? Yes. What's so ****ing hard to understand about this? You were blind, drugged out, deaf, or all of the above in the last nine-ten years?

You could be right, most probably you are, that people in Iraq and Afghanistan were SAYING things like that. But nobody in Iraq and Afghanistan was responsible for the 9/11 attack. It was Osama Bin Laden and his gang that took responsibility for it.

So in effect what you are saying is that people MUST be punished by Americans when people think something that you, personally don't approve of as a thought.

It IS in the Christian teachings, "thou shall not sin, neither in action nor in thought..."

I accept that according to your faith, ill will, even if not followed up by acts, is a sin. That's part of your faith, so be it. I don't think a man can be or ought to be foudn guilty for thinking about something. OJ Simpson got off, your American justice system vindicated him, but people in Iraq have dark hair and speak a foreign language, so they are fair game to kill and slaughter, and their country is a fair playground for american weapons-use.

You make me sick with your rhetoric, man. You say "They got what they wanted and should not be surprised when violence comes back for payback." This is such ill logic; the war in Iraq was not "payback", it was angry Americans shooting innocent people.

For one, more than just the Iraqis "got what they wanted"; most of the Arab world wanted 9/11, including some or all of the Royals in Saudi Arabia. Most of Muslim Africa, and some of Muslim Asia got what they wanted. Some liberal-thinking Europeans and Americans outside the USA wished a lesson for America, for America had been getting very-very cocky.

But only Iraq got razed to the ground. Why? If your logic can be applied, then all other nations in which some people wished somethign like 9/11 would happen before it happened, but they also did not do anything to make it happen, should also be razed. God, in the UK the sentiments were very high against the US and the Iraq war. If you want to apply your faulty logic, go ahead, but at least be universal about it, don't be arbitrarily biassed, and raze England and Italy and France as well.


However, your entire nation, which is predominantly Christian, agrees with you. This I find actually sinful: To punish an entire nation, Iraq and the Iraqis, for the "sinful" thoughts some in that nation had.

You are going back to biblical times, man, when the Israelites destroyed entire nations because God told them. Now you are told by the President of the United States to destroy entire nations, and like good, nice Americans, you go and destroy entire nations.

I spit at you for that. Not at you personally, but at your entire nation.

I am sorry... I hold still that original opinion you object to.

And what does all of this have to do with the shootings in Tucson??

I have no idea. I just answered your question. If you can't handle the answer, don't ask the question.

You said, "I have no idea what you are talking about". I told you what I was talking about.

Your questions never seem to stop coming.

I refuse to tell you why the sky is blue, and where babies come from.

Ask some questions of your mother, now. I have things to do with adults. Or go play with your toys. Go kill some people, for God's sake, leave me alone.

LOL...it seems as though you are posting in the wrong thread!!...but I know how you leftists & socialists can so easily get confused!!

But its cool...I like your humor. Gotta have more humor!!

Well I'm sure you would rather prefer the United states to sit back and watch rockets come from every Anti American nation on a daily basis while we sit back and twiddle our thumbs.We have the greatest military force in the world but we can just let them idle and let our Americans get slaughtered because after all we can't possible defend out nation when it is attacked.


It seems most of the countries in this world is supporting the Iraq war and was voted on by the UN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_–_Iraq


Australia: 2,000 invasion (withdrawn 7/09)
United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion (withdrawn 7/09)
Romania: 730 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 7/09)
El Salvador: 380 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 1/09)
Estonia: 40 troops (deployed 6/05-withdrawn 1/09)
Bulgaria: 485 peak (deployed 5/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Moldova: 24 peak (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Albania: 240 troops (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Ukraine: 1,650 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Denmark: 545 peak (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Czech Republic: 300 peak (deployed 12/03-withdrawn 12/08)
South Korea: 3,600 peak (deployed 5/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Japan: 600 troops (deployed 1/04-withdrawn 12/08)
Tonga: 55 troops (deployed 7/04-withdrawn 12/08)
Azerbaijan: 250 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Singapore: 175 offshore (deployed 12/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 85 peak (deployed 6/05-withdrawn 11/08)
Macedonia: 77 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 11/08)
Latvia: 136 peak (deployed 5/03-withdrawn 11/08)
Poland: 200 invasion—2,500 peak (withdrawn 10/08)
Kazakhstan: 29 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 10/08)
Armenia: 46 troops (deployed 1/05-withdrawn 10/08)
Mongolia: 180 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 09/08)
Georgia: 2,000 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 8/08) Slovakia: 110 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/07)
Lithuania: 120 peak (deployed 6/03-withdrawn 08/07)
Italy: 3,200 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 11/06)
Norway: 150 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 8/06)
Hungary: 300 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 3/05)
Netherlands: 1,345 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 3/05)
Portugal: 128 troops (deployed 11/03-withdrawn 2/05)
New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 9/04)
Thailand: 423 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 8/04)
Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 7/04)
Honduras: 368 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 5/04)
Dominican Republic: 302 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 5/04)
Spain: 1,300 troops (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 4/04)
Nicaragua: 230 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 2/04)
Iceland: 2 troops (deployed 5/03-withdrawal date unknown)


Christianity has nothing to do with this war.We don't go to war for biblical reasons,are at war for biblical reasons,or continue to support the war for biblical reasons.If you can find any information at all saying we went for this war because of something written in the bible go ahead.



As long as terrorist continue to fight then we are going to be dropping bombs all over Iraq and Afghanistan.It's not Americans that are killing these people it's the leaders they are supporting.The first day we started dropping bombs these terrorist leaders could have surrendered saving their people.Yet they keep fighting.Japan got the picture really quick after the first atomic bomb was dropped.The figured out how many more hundreds of thousands would die yet could care less.

If these people really want to save their own lives they should start capturing and killing these people who are causing the terrorism.Yet do they protest?No.Do they demand a stop to the violence?No.All you see them doing is jumping up and down burning American flags and screaming death to America and Israel.So I don't feel sorry for them when they are getting carpet bombed weapons in hand or not.They want to bring their own destruction it's their own choice when they want it to end.They know they can never beat us so they can either surrender or join us.


By the way I think most Americans don't even know Canada is a country let alone someone we should be getting military lip service from.

There are 192 countries in the world the list you provided is a who's who of american stooges most of these countries were bribed to send a minimum of support and hardly any of them actualy saw combat most were support roles. By the way most americans know Canada is a country and we wish we had their healthcare.

There are 192 countries in the world the list you provided is a who's who of american stooges most of these countries were bribed to send a minimum of support and hardly any of them actualy saw combat most were support roles. By the way most americans know Canada is a country and we wish we had their healthcare.

A quick scan of opinion polls reveals that, while governments are supporting the US, the people are solidly opposed to unilateral and even UN action in all but a few countries. This can be explained by diplomatic pressure which has, for now, overcome a distinct lack of popular support in the following countries:

Britain: 86% say give weapons inspectors more time, 34% think that US and Britain have made a convincing case for invasion. »

Spain: 80% opposed to war, 91% against attack without UN resolution »

Italy: 72% opposed to war »

Portugal: 65% say there is no reason to attack now »

Hungary: 82% opposed to invasion under any circumstances »

Czech Republic: 67% opposed to invasion under any circumstances »

Poland: 63% against sending Polish troops, 52% support US "politically" »

Denmark: 79% oppose war without U.N. mandate »

Australia: 56 per cent only backed UN-sanctioned action, 12% support unilateral action. 76% oppose participation in a US-led war on Iraq. Australian Senate voted 33-31 to censure Howard for committing 2,000 soldiers to US action. »

The "Vilnius 10" is a group of 9 countries that are seeking membership in NATO and Croatia. In many cases, their future security depends on NATO membership. In Estonia, for example, there is a tangible fear that Russia will take over again, given a militaristic enough government and the right opportunity (the--thankfully past--popularity of the fascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky was a good indication of this possibility. Zhirinovsky had a map in his office showing the borders of Russia expanded to include the former Soviet Union and Alaska). In any case, it's doubtful that these governments are supporting the US for any other reason than to get diplomatic points (or conversely, not piss away their chances of NATO membership).

Taking Estonia as an example again, we find that the government has supported war without any debate in Parliament, despite 70% of the people and major newspapers opposed to war in Iraq.

Latvia: 74% oppose taking out Hussein with military force »

Romania: 38% opposed, 45% in favour »

Macedonia: 10% support war on Iraq »

Bulgaria: 21% support war »

Estonia: 30% support war »

Slovakia: 60% oppose sending Slovak soldiers »

Information for Albania, Croatia, Slovenia and Lithuania was immediately available via Google news, but according to this report, Romania is the only country in the "Vilnius 10" that has a majority of the population supporting the war.

For comparison purposes:

France: 76% against war without UN support »

Germany: 55% against war with UN support, 90% against war without UN support. 57% hold the opinion that "the United States is a nation of warmongers". »

posted by dru in us
http://misnomer.dru.ca/2003/02/11/a_coalition_of_the_willing.html

Sorry but one man posting a website he created who he calls it a leftist website that hasn't been updated in 8 years is not a reliable source.Try Wikipedia next time....



posted by dru in us


Misnomer is a weblog about the politics of new and old media, foreign policy, tech, culture, philosophy, and photography. It is maintained by Dru Oja Jay, who variously calls himself a student, journalist, web designer, and writer. He lives in Sackville, New Brunswick, Canada.


The Dominion is a new Canadian national newspaper with a lefty skew, a decent web site, and an unconventional distribution model.

The facts are not in dispute. google them but to make you happy I tried WIKI

In the second debate in 2004 U.S. presidential election, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry questioned the size of the coalition participating in the initial invasion, saying, "...when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better". Bush responded by saying, "Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there's 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops". The phrase "You forgot Poland" subsequently became a sarcastic shorthand for the perception that most members of the coalition were not contributing much to the war effort compared to the main three allies. The majority of the population in most countries involved did not, according to surveys, support the endeavour or their nation's participation.[10]

Late U.S. Senator Robert Byrd, then ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, referred to the coalition formed for the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the acronym COW, expressing his concern that the United States was being "milked" as a "cash cow". A Canadian MP, Carolyn Parrish, referred to the "Coalition of the Willing" as the "Coalition of the Idiots". She was reprimanded for these comments, and was eventually removed from the Liberal Party of Canada caucus following a long-standing dispute with Prime Minister Paul Martin over policy.

As of August 2009, all non-U.S. coalition members had withdrawn from Iraq.[11] As a result, the Multinational Force in Iraq was renamed and reorganized into the United States Forces - Iraq as of January 1, 2010. Thus the Coalition of the Willing came to an official end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing

The Democrat Congress voted for the war twice. They wanted it as much, if not more than anybody else.

So what it does not make it right, anyhow they delibertly misled the public and congress on the wmd threat of Iraq. Shame on them and us.

Well, well, well. Again, you did not answer at all the most important point of my cricism: WHY did Ameria attack Iraq. In my opinion that military action by the USA was an causally, morally and contentionally unsupported invasion of an innocent country. Period. If you say otherwise, please support that; if you can't say anything about this part, then it means you accept my point.

Other points:

1. The Invasion was done by two coutnries: the UK and the USA. The other countries joined the coalition in 2003.

2. Most coutnries that joined the coalition had their soldiers safely tucked away in bases, cause there was too much violence outside. This is in the article. Too much violence? For soldiers? That's what everyone asks. I say it's the doing of a foreign invader (USA) on a country which was totally destroyed by the USA politically, in its infrastructure, in its suprastructure, in its culture, nothing remained but senseless violence. Why do I say this is the fault of the USA? Cause there was NO senseless violence before the invasion to the proportions of what they USA caused with its invading policies. You can say Saddam killed people, yes; but during saddam soldiers were not afraid to walk the streets. People, women, children, merchants, everyone lived in peace in the largest parts of the country. If a soldier is too scared to leave the base, I say it's too much violence. And this is unarguably the doing of the USA for a reason that only madmen can understand.

3. The coalition members sent soldiers from 161 to 300 soldiers each, other than the major players. Most coalition force member states sent fewer troops in total than 10% of the US Casualties. In effect, about 400,000 troops were sent by the US, and around 2,000 troops were sent by each other country. That means that these other countries sent troops

- way after the original invasion
- in forces that were ridiculously negligible
- and only as a sign of political support for the USA in this war.

4. Why would countries show political support for the USA? Most did it for MONEY. MULLAH, man. The article goes into details how coutnries got long-term no-interest loans IN THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS which was necessary by the USA to pay these countries to get them to send 300 measly troops. In other words, it was worth for the USA to spend BILLIONS to get the nominal support of 152 countries, which support was symbolic only.

5. Okay, so the USA spent a lot of money to get others to participate. This is nothing else but buying friendship. You know what happens to people who buy others' friendship, instead of earn it, with moral, nice, likable behaviour full of integrity? When the money runs out, the friend dies.

6. I got all the points I said in this post from the same article you quoted. Each and every one.

7. Please do your homework next time. You keep quoting from articles that say more against your argument than in support of it. You MUST read what you quote and understand it, otherwise you will keep shooting yourself in the foot, won't you.

8. Then again, if you want to quote articles in order to support your points, and you look for articles that provide you with that, without negating your points at the same time, then... well, you won't find any.

-------

Before you want to side-track again; please tell me what the reason of the USA was to attack Iraq. If you say other countries should also try to catch people who are opt to do terrorist acts, oh, there are lots of items to tell you, but the main one is this: The USA effectively destroyed the quality of lives for millions, including losing 4400+ troops to catch the major terrorist. In the 9/11 tragic and despicable terrorist act, about 2000 Americans perished.

Were the terrorists caught? Why not? I mean, billions and billions of dollars went into finding them, including gifts to foreign countries to show nominal moral support to the US.

This... this you want me to say "okay, it's fine, you're right." I will not say that. America has gone off in the deep end in its stupidity, I am sorry.

I am sort of inclined to believe that the famous American innovation and know-how of the past has somehow devolved into throwing money at problems, at the same time throwing away American lives and destroying other peoples.

A lot of sacrifice for no reason whatsoever, once you realize that the invasion of Iraq was a dumb move that can't be supported by reasonable arguments.

Thomas,this quote from you is the only one I agree with, and I agree with fully and from the bottom of my heart.

A country, in which most citizens who had gone through primary and high school education, and do not know at least one of the only two (2) countries that have a common border with them, supports my entire argument famously and partially.

You guys are so dumbed down by the media and by your ineffective school system,that you don't know what Canada is, and if you somehow know that it's a country, you don't know where it is, and that it borders your country. This is pathetic, I am sorry. This is ridiculous.

I am not saying you are wrong in your content when you quoted this informal statistic, but think about it: there are over 200 countries in the world. Most Americans know there is a United States of America, but they don't have any idea which country borders it. What chance do the other 200+ countries have, of Americans knowing about them? You see the ludicrity of this? No? Then that's consistent with what I quoted from your post.

Also: Canadians paying military lip-service? I think your language skills are devolving along with the geographical knowledge of the majority of your countrymen, and along with the moral and spiritual devolution of your entire nation.

I assure you you are not getting military lip-service from Canadians here. You may consider that I am doing some lipping, but that is quite different from lip-service.

Thomas, one thing about debating is that logic that you use, and you are sure is acceptable, can be directed at you, and you have no rational defence if it shows discrepancy in your thinking.

So. You say it's not American's bombs that kill people in two contries. That is curious; why drop bombs then?

You say it's their leaders that are killing their own people not Americans. Fine, but I don't see any supportive evidence. To kill is to take away lives. You are saying the leaders are not lyign down, sucking up to America, and therefore they are morally responsible for the lives lost of their countrymen due to American killers killing them.

And all is based contingent if there are terrorists continuing to fight.

Man.

Terrorists who fight are independent of these nations. Where are these terrorists fighting? Against whom? The USA is fighting somebody in these two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan; but are these locals terrorists? I hardly think so. Think about it: If Russkies or North Koreans invaded the USA, would the patriots of the USA who defend their land and property be counted as terrorists? No? then why do you call the fighters in a foreign land where the invaders are killing them, terrorists? These Iraqi and Afghan fighters are not terrorists. So who are the terrorists, and where are they fighting?

What you are saying then is, that it's completely fine and OK for the USA to bomb two countries, which are removed from terrorist organizations, as long as the terrorism continues, which I contest that it does not.

What you have is a big country, with lots of arms and money, the USA; and it bombs two countries, which you claim are randomly chosen, and bombs them as long as the USA claims something is happening, which it does not.

Where does the USA get the moral upper-hand on this? It's like whipping a whipping boy in the slave-keeping past of the USA. Somebody does something bad, so a totally innocent person and in our case, two innocent countries, are punished for it.

So you go back to the old whipping-boy days. Who supports this interantional behaviour? You, yeah, and lots of coalition countries, who have been paid hefty monies to show support.

I don't know how moral support can be bought. Support, yes, but not moral support. Moral support is given freely, and sometimes it even comes with sacrifice for those who provide moral support.

What you have here is the USA that keeps punishing two innocent countries, while the rest of the world was showing disapproval, heavy disapproval, and then now it's been changed to these countries laughing at the USA, because the USA gave them money to keep their disapproval to themselves.

It's it the article you quoted.

Okay. Pay me a hundred thousand dollars and I get off your case, I will pretend to give you moral support, by shutting up, or even giving you that famous lip-service you deluded to in one poorly constructed sentence of yours.

Until then, if you find it okay to blame Iraqi and Afghan leaders for your killing their people, then it is only reasonable to expect you find it also okay that if some terrorists kill your people automatically, then they have the right to blame you for terrorists killings in your country with the same logic, meaning, they will do it automatically WHILE the bombings continue by Americans in their country.

You guys lost your senses, I am telling you. I appreciate that by my telling you this you won't get back your senses.


What a complete mess.