Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 Timothy2:1-4
And yet President Bush came to the same conclusion of the following:
Former President Clinton
Sentator Hillary Clinton
Senator John Kerry
The European Intelligence community
When did they agree on this. In 1998. If you accuse President Bush of lying or misrepresenting intelligence then you need to include the list above in your accusations.
A Senator does not have access to all the information a President has access to. I don't believe the European Intelligence community were at all in agreement. In fact, why did only the UK support us on invading Iraq? President Clinton did believe that there very well might have been WMD but not enough to start a war.
Why did only the UK support the war?
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by 2 Timothy2:1-4, Feb 20, 2007.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
For starters it is false that only the UK supported the War. There have been many countries involved in this war. Do I really need to make a list?
However two countries that fought against the war such as France and Russia was against it for two reasons:
1. the had prior agreements with Iraq that required debts to be repaid. Iraq owed then money.
2. It has been discovered that in the failed oil for food program as overseen by the Un both Russia and France were making deals with Saddam under the table ilegally and benefitting fro the program.
Iraq was their sugar daddy for countries that have failing economies under socialism. -
-
-
Iceland has remained steady at 2. -
Britian and a host of other nations has contributed to the war in Iraq with their money and their blood. You may have forgotten some of the incidents that made the international news. -
Bob Farnaby Active MemberSite Supporter
Could try it on the Australian veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq too ... and those from other nations who have contributed forces in vvarious numbers (usually small) to the American led wars.
Regards
Bob -
-
S&N didnt say that. He implied tht britts involvment was minimal with a total of 7200 troops ever. The fact is they have been reducing their numbers as it was necessary. The recent declared reduction is not new or isolated. And eve after this reduction of Britts troops occurs they will still have 5500 troops in Iraq. It is not a complete pull out.
In the end S&N was wrong. -
-
I am not sure how many troops Australia has in Iraq at the moment, I think it is around the 1700 mark, two SAS units who track and kill terrorists, peace keepers and military trainers who are training Iraqi people to take up the job once western forces leave.
On that, it is worth pointing out that the Iraqi's that are being trained have to contend with not their own people, but combatants shipped in from other countries. Although there are problems with a civil war going on, it needs to be remembered that there are still outside influences in Iraq making the problem worse.
Also Australia have peace keeping missions in some 17 other countries at the moment including in Afghanistan and the Solomon Islands. 1700 in Iraq may not seem alot, yet bear in mind that we have a population of 13 million adults, unlike the 300 million plus in the U.S and the U.K 60 million. -
-
-
That's correct. My numbers were wrong but I believe my point was correct.
2003 invasion of Iraq
Five countries participated with troops during the initial invasion (termed the Major Combat Operations phase), which lasted from March 19 to May 1. These were the United States (250,000 troops), United Kingdom (45,000 troops), Australia (2,000), Poland (194) and Denmark (460).
Now, there are 21 countries involved all (except for S. Korea with 2,300) with troop levels less than 1,000 and 12 with troop levels of around 100. The has been an American/British war obviously which was my initial point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq
By the way. I watch the radical left media news every night. I read a lot of news on the internet. I don't ever remember it being reported that the other members of our coalition was pulling out especially to the extent that the British have. Funny. -
-
Do you believe that every war is just and worth fighting? What has anyone gained from this one? -
We've accomplished several of the points listed in the Congressional resolution and are working on the rest. The challenges are, at times, overwhelming but they can be accomplished if we'll continue with the resolve that Congress embodied in its resolution of 2002. Our warriors have no inclination to quit just because it's difficult.
From a broader view, we've established a hope in Iraq for a more representative government that in turn can be a catalyst for change in the region to move farther away from the influence of radical leaders. It's still a hope and, of course, is at times overshadowed by the legacy of that influence which has been extant for generations. We, nor the people of Iraq, face an easy struggle. Many around the world want us to fail.
Having such a base in the region may some day prove to be of great value to us, and other peace loving nations, if we must deal with more of our enemies in surrounding nations. That day may come sooner than we expect. -
Is America somehow perfect while all other nations sometimes act in error? That's simply not true. -
However, America has throughout history only engaged in just war, never plundered another nation for its resources, has consistently demonstrated great compassion for all those it has defeated in war, and been quick and generous to help restore and make peace with even the most bitter of enemies. That's something many nations can not claim in their history.
I see no basis for a negative twist on our motives and practices in war or in the peace that follows it. Doing so is an undeserved discredit to America and to those who've served as her warriors. -
Maybe they feel they still owe us one.
Page 1 of 2