the Democrats and the fraudulent coaltion

[charrison]

Watched the debate tonight and Kerry called the 30-40 countries that participated in Iraqi Freedom a "fraudulent coalition". I know the UK and Australia lost troops in the action and this is very large insult to two very close allies. Kuwait, Saudi(not that I would consider them a friend), and Qatar provided needed staging areas. Several other of the democrats had a similar opinion of the coalition.


Is it not a bad idea from a foreign policy perspective to directly insult many this nations friends and allies?

 

[XMan]

I keep waiting for them to say what they're going to do, rather than blame Bush for everything.

I'd vote for someone other than Bush if any of them seemed to present any better ideas on how to do things, but it seems like the idea so far is just to throw more mud than the next guy and hope it works.

 

[sMiLeYz]

1. I don't think foreign leaders watch American political debates...

2. The populations of those said countries overwhelmingly disagreed with the war.

3. The only thing I think you have to do to be part of the coalition of the willing, is just say that you won't stand in the way of the US.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
1. I don't think foreign leaders watch American political debates...

2. The populations of those said countries overwhelmingly disagreed with the war.

3. The only thing I think you have to do to be part of the coalition of the willing, is just say that you won't stand in the way of the US.

so, under those conditions, it is ok to insult the UK, australia, and kuwait?

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
1. I don't think foreign leaders watch American political debates...

2. The populations of those said countries overwhelmingly disagreed with the war.

3. The only thing I think you have to do to be part of the coalition of the willing, is just say that you won't stand in the way of the US.

so, under those conditions, it is ok to insult the UK, australia, and kuwait?

If it was ok to insult our allies like France and Germany, it should be alright to insult those allies who went against the overwhelming will of their people (democracy in action is great, isn't it?) and got themselves involved in this debacle. Fair enough for England and Australia to get upset, they actualy lost men, but they can tell countries like Micronesia et all to eat sh!t for all I care, they were truely in it for the money. If you are going to be critical of the war, you have to be critical of all the players involved IMO.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
1. I don't think foreign leaders watch American political debates...

2. The populations of those said countries overwhelmingly disagreed with the war.

3. The only thing I think you have to do to be part of the coalition of the willing, is just say that you won't stand in the way of the US.

so, under those conditions, it is ok to insult the UK, australia, and kuwait?

I think they've been insulted enough that we're in Iraq and using their names to hide behind a hugely unpopular war.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: X-Man
I keep waiting for them to say what they're going to do, rather than blame Bush for everything.

I'd vote for someone other than Bush if any of them seemed to present any better ideas on how to do things, but it seems like the idea so far is just to throw more mud than the next guy and hope it works.

Unfortunately due to the fact that there are 9 of them fighting for time in these debates, none of them can fully present their plan to deal with Iraq. Kucinich explicitly stated during the debate to look on his website for his detailed solution. Have you done this? If not, why not? Democracy is not a passive process, it requires the people to put in effort. In this great day and age, it means searching the candidates' websites for a few minutes:

Kucinich's plan to get the UN in, the US out
Dean's 7 point plan for Iraq's reconstruction
A comparison chart put forward by the Dean campaign presenting the differences between his plan, Kerry's plan, and Lieberman's plan
Edwards outlines his views for Iraq reconstruction (somewhat dated)

I'm sure there's much more out there on this from the other candidates. Point is, its your personal responsibility to educate yourself on these candidates' positions before criticizing them for having not having any. They're unable to communicate such detailed positions in the present format of these debates. What these debates degenerate into is a battle of sound bites.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
1. I don't think foreign leaders watch American political debates...

i am sure many of them do.

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
2. The populations of those said countries overwhelmingly disagreed with the war.

really? got poll results? links?

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
3. The only thing I think you have to do to be part of the coalition of the willing, is just say that you won't stand in the way of the US.

well at least we have made progress, 40 or so countries are not being referred to as "unilateral" as much....

 

[Drift3r]

Muwhahahaha progress ? Yeah most of those 40 had nothing to lose ( except Kuwiat ) and almost all wanted something in return, i.e Poland....

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
1. I don't think foreign leaders watch American political debates...

i am sure many of them do.

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
2. The populations of those said countries overwhelmingly disagreed with the war.

really? got poll results? links?

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
3. The only thing I think you have to do to be part of the coalition of the willing, is just say that you won't stand in the way of the US.

well at least we have made progress, 40 or so countries are not being referred to as "unilateral" as much....

I would love to see how many of those 40 or so countries you could point out on a map let alone pronounce. And yes, most of the world did oppose the war, apparently you missed the demonstrations in London, the largest the city has EVER seen, or those in Spain, Australia and Italy, other great members of the coalition of the willing. Just do a google search and you will find reliable stats on how many people in the countries that mattered actually supported our policies. But who knows, maybe you are right, it could be that the populations of Micronesia, Pulau, Honduras and other global powerhouses who hopped on board were totally for the invasion.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
1. I don't think foreign leaders watch American political debates...

i am sure many of them do.

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
2. The populations of those said countries overwhelmingly disagreed with the war.

really? got poll results? links?

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
3. The only thing I think you have to do to be part of the coalition of the willing, is just say that you won't stand in the way of the US.

well at least we have made progress, 40 or so countries are not being referred to as "unilateral" as much....

I would love to see how many of those 40 or so countries you could point out on a map let alone pronounce. And yes, most of the world did oppose the war, apparently you missed the demonstrations in London, the largest the city has EVER seen, or those in Spain, Australia and Italy, other great members of the coalition of the willing. Just do a google search and you will find reliable stats on how many people in the countries that mattered actually supported our policies. But who knows, maybe you are right, it could be that the populations of Micronesia, Pulau, Honduras and other global powerhouses who hopped on board were totally for the invasion.

you forgot Mongolia

 

[chess9]

X-Man:

Well, I think they weren't as effective as they could be getting the message out, but it was probably due to the time constraints of the medium. Most of them would go hat in hand to the U.N., do their mea culpas, and start cooperating with France, Germany, and Russia. (This should be handled by the U.N.) The neo-cons HATE the U.N. and that's why we are paying out the nose for Iraq. But, even the neo-cons now realize they are impaled on the horns of a very big dilemma. They will get killed politically if they back away from Iraq and their U.N. snub, but the American people-the short attention span theater audience-will not support a protracted and expensive operation. Bush and the neo-cons have been hoist on their own petard, IMHO. So, a better question is: "What will Bush do with Iraq if he's re-elected?"
-Robert

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: charrison
Is it not a bad idea from a foreign policy perspective to directly insult many this nations friends and allies?

Bush did. Repeatedly. It is worse when the acting president does it.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: charrison
Is it not a bad idea from a foreign policy perspective to directly insult many this nations friends and allies?

Bush did. Repeatedly. It is worse when the acting president does it.

Ditto. Remember Freedom Fries?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: charrison
Is it not a bad idea from a foreign policy perspective to directly insult many this nations friends and allies?

Bush did. Repeatedly. It is worse when the acting president does it.

Ditto. Remember Freedom Fries?

So that makes it OK for the Democrats to continue this practise?

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: charrison
Is it not a bad idea from a foreign policy perspective to directly insult many this nations friends and allies?

Bush did. Repeatedly. It is worse when the acting president does it.

Ditto. Remember Freedom Fries?

So that makes it OK for the Democrats to continue this practise?

QUESTION: Mr. Boucher, do you have anything on the proposal for the creation of a European Union military headquarters in Brussels independent of NATO -- something that have angered the United States, according to reports?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not quite sure what proposal that is. You mean the one from the four countries that got together and had a little, bitty summit?

QUESTION: That's exactly it -- and Belgium insisting to this --

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, the chocolate makers.


Here's a news story on the press conference:


He described the April meeting as one between "four countries that got together and had a little bitty summit" and then referred to them collectively as "the chocolate makers."

The derisive phrase appeared to target mainly Belgium, which is known for its high quality chocolate confections, and on Tuesday reiterated its support for the new headquarters.


link

And US people wonder why we think the Bush admin is a disgrace

Belgium contributed in total 15 million euro for Iraq. We have soldiers in Afghanistan.
It's really nice to see that our help is appreciated by Bush and his minions

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: charrison
Is it not a bad idea from a foreign policy perspective to directly insult many this nations friends and allies?

Bush did. Repeatedly. It is worse when the acting president does it.

Ditto. Remember Freedom Fries?

So that makes it OK for the Democrats to continue this practise?

Were any of the candidates at the debate yesterday disaparaging specific countries?

Were they questioing alliances that have stood for over fifty years.

Were they directly threatening punishments and making insulting comments againts countries that didn't support us directly? Where they making comments about cowardice, and financial interests as many on the right were? Including you on this very forum??

They were saying things that many REUBLICANS have said as well, that this "coalition" is more for show than substance with the bulk of the combat capability, funding, willpower, and all of the command anc control coming from the United States and Britian. They were saying that the populations of most of the countries in the coalition were decidely against this war and continue to be against it.

If you want to see this as an insult on the same level as the things that were done by the US prior to the war go ahead. I didn't see you complaining then.

We are obviously never going to agree on this issue, you see what you want to see, and I will see what I want to see.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Were any of the candidates at the debate yesterday disaparaging specific countries?

Yes - the US. I believe in the 2000 campaign the Democrats blasted Bush for talking down the economy(which was already headed south), yet now they blast away while the economy is in recovery mode. Yeah, they sure did have some disparaging remarks about THIS country last night and throughout this campaign. Also they keep spouting how this country is such a disaster, and that we have no allies now...etc etc. They are just blowing smoke because the only way they think they can win is by trashing this country and saying how bad things are. Things aren't that bad, and they only seem to want to say that they are against what Bush will do instead of presenting what they want to do. We keep getting the yapping, but no details.

Time for some substance - not the shrill "I'm a better hater that you are" rhetoric(which I found disgusting last night).

CkG

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Were any of the candidates at the debate yesterday disaparaging specific countries?

Yes - the US. I believe in the 2000 campaign the Democrats blasted Bush for talking down the economy(which was already headed south), yet now they blast away while the economy is in recovery mode. Yeah, they sure did have some disparaging remarks about THIS country last night and throughout this campaign. Also they keep spouting how this country is such a disaster, and that we have no allies now...etc etc. They are just blowing smoke because the only way they think they can win is by trashing this country and saying how bad things are. Things aren't that bad, and they only seem to want to say that they are against what Bush will do instead of presenting what they want to do. We keep getting the yapping, but no details.

Time for some substance - not the shrill "I'm a better hater that you are" rhetoric(which I found disgusting last night).

CkG

Then don't vote for a Democrat. I for one will be voting for a Democrat and hopefully we will have the opportunity to set things right in 2005...assuming I get back from Kuwait and Iraq alive.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Then don't vote for a Democrat.

The candidates made that decision quite clear.

CkG

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Then don't vote for a Democrat.

The candidates made that decision quite clear.

CkG

Well they really aren't trying to convince people like you.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Then don't vote for a Democrat.

The candidates made that decision quite clear.

CkG

I think Bush made the contrary decision quite clear

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Then don't vote for a Democrat.

The candidates made that decision quite clear.

CkG

Well they really aren't trying to convince people like you.

They better be. IF hell freezes over they could just be my President - you know. That makes it my business and they should listen to everyone if they want to lead everyone.

CkG

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Then don't vote for a Democrat.

The candidates made that decision quite clear.

CkG

Well they really aren't trying to convince people like you.

They better be. IF hell freezes over they could just be my President - you know. That makes it my business and they should listen to everyone if they want to lead everyone.

CkG

Like the current administration?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Then don't vote for a Democrat.

The candidates made that decision quite clear.

CkG

Well they really aren't trying to convince people like you.

They better be. IF hell freezes over they could just be my President - you know. That makes it my business and they should listen to everyone if they want to lead everyone.

CkG

Like the current administration?

Yep. I do believe that things have been moderated from input, and do we forget who wrote the education bill? Hmm....

This thread is about the Dem candidates and their assult on those who have helped us during this Iraq campaign. For them(Dems) to keep saying that it was Unilateral(new meaning= without France) is utter nonsense. Also this idea of a "fraudulent coalition" does in fact attack those who helped - I think they'd be wise to rethink their blatantly partisan attacks because what they are doing is the same thing they accused Bush, et al of doing before and during the war. You can't spin it one way for one, but not the other.

CkG