Sorry guys, there's no help for him
A
CLEAR DIFFERENCE
October 1, 2004 --Last night's presidential debate suc ceeded in a way that similar match ups in previous campaigns have too often failed — in making clear some stark differences between the candidates.
John Kerry has reason to feel good about his performance; his much-vaunted debating skills were on full display last night. In contrast, President Bush too often rambled.
Still, the contrasts between them on several key issues came through.
On Iraq, Bush clearly grasped — where Kerry did not — both the relationship of Iraq to the War on Terror and the futility of relying on U.N. disapprobation to disarm Saddam Hussein.
Let's be clear. You can't have a war on terror. Terror has no weapon; terror has no body. You can only have a war on people.
It's like guns. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Right? So why are we talking about a war against fear instead of a war against that which we fear.
A war against fear would mean doing things so we don't have to be afraid. That is NOT what George Bush is doing. In fact, it is the opposite of what George Bush is doing.
So yes, I would say George Bush has an excellent understanding of the relationship of Iraq to the "War on Terror."
George Bush is using Iraq to justify continuing the "War on Terror" and using "War on Terror" to justify controlling Iraq.
As far as relying on U.N. disapprobation to disarm Saddam Hussein…
NEWS FLASH: THE NATION OF IRAQ HAD NO WEAPONS. IRAQ HAD BEEN FORCED TO DISARM. WITH SANCTIONS, FLYOVERS AND REGULAR BOMBING, IRAQIS COULD DO US NO HARM.
But Bush reminded Kerry that "Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Why should he?
Why should he?
HOW COULD HE?
The country of Iraq had NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
But this…THIS is the most amazingly blatant lie in the editorial:
The fact is, America had plenty of allies on Sept. 10, 2001. The same wasn't true two days later, when the United States set out to bring terrorism to its knees.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. But being a progressive, I know Conservatives aren't prepared to take my word for it. So I asked my uncle about it.
Citizens from more than 80 countries died that day – innocent men, women and children from across the globe. Within hours of the tragedy, coalitions involving many nations assembled to fight terrorism – literally hundreds of countries have contributed in a variety of ways – some militarily, others diplomatically, economically and financially. Some nations have helped openly; others prefer not to disclose their contributions.
I also asked my uncle to compare the coalition that participated in Operation Enduring Freedom with the one that invaded Iraq. Of the Afghanistan coalition, he said:
The United States began building the coalition on September 12, 2001, and there are currently 70 nations supporting the global war on terrorism. To date, 21 nations have deployed more than 16,000 troops to the U.S. Central Command’s region of responsibility. This coalition of the willing is working hard every day to defeat terrorism, wherever it may exist.
In Afghanistan alone, our coalition partners are contributing nearly 8,000 troops to Operation Enduring Freedom and to the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul – making up over half of the 15,000 non-Afghan forces in Afghanistan. The war against terrorism is a broad-based effort that will take time. Every nation has different circumstances and will participate in different ways. This mission and future missions will require a series of coalitions ready to take on the challenges and assume the risks associated with such an operation.
Coalition forces have made important contributions in the war against terrorism across the spectrum of operations. Particular contributions include, but are not limited to, providing vital intelligence, personnel, equipment and assets for use on the ground, air and sea. Coalition members also have provided liaison teams, participated in planning, provided bases and granted over-flight permissions – as well as sizable contributions of humanitarian assistance.
Forty-eight countries are publicly committed to the Coalition, including:
Significant drop.
Since Uncle Sam doesn't want t talk about this, I had to check alternate sources.
Nature of support
The criteria for inclusion in the coalition, as defined by the White House, are very broad, including mere political support.
Combat troops
- United States - hundreds of thousands of troops, weaponry, money, etc.
- Britain - 45,000 troops, aircraft, tanks
- Australia - about 2,000 personnel: a squadron of F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets, three ships, 150 special forces troops, and other weaponry. See Australian contribution to the 2003 Gulf War.
- Denmark - submarine & warship, and a medical team
- Poland - 54 combat troops, 74-member chemical decontamination team, supply ship with 56 sailors; total troops - up to 200; See Polish contribution to the 2003 Gulf War.
- Iraqi Kurdish peshmergas militia - 50,000+
Note: While the Government of Canada does not support the invasion of Iraq without United Nations approval, Canada has military personnel serving under the U.S. command in Iraq, provides six hi-tech frigate escorts for U.S. & British ships in the Gulf, and numerous other technical services. U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, stated that Canada in fact is providing more support that virtually all other members of the "Coalition of the Willing".
And best of all:
Political support only
* Afghanistan
* Colombia
* Dominican Republic
* El Salvador
* Honduras
* Iceland (has no military)
* Japan
* Latvia (may deploy some troops)
* Marshall Islands
* Micronesia (has no military)
* Mongolia
* Nicaragua
* Palau (has no military)
* Philippines
* Rwanda
* Singapore
* Uganda
* Uzbekistan
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
