Homestead mailing list

[Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>]

On Oct 28, 2008, at 11:06 AM, EarthNSky wrote:
> People like you would not have wanted to cross into Syria to get them,
> and how do you know that Congress was not shown proof.  Perhaps that  
> is
> why they gave Bush permission, not because of lies, but because of  
> some
> proof?

Large numbers of Congress people have addressed this. They were not  
given proof. Why do you cling to this faint possibility?
> > I don't believe that was the case. If it had been the case, then the
> > world might have joined us in the endeavor.
>
> I do believe we had a coalition...let's see..
> Britain, South Korea, Australia, Albania, Bosnia, Azerbaijan,
> Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Romainia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Bulgaria,  
> Denmark,
> Japan, Lithuania, Mongolia....etc. etc... We did not go in alone.
> Additional support came from Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, El
> Salvador, Thialand and Kazakstan.  I'm sure I'm leaving countries  
> out...

As you have found a source, please give us the numbers of troops sent  
compared to the number of Americans sent. Now compare those numbers to  
the action to push Sadaam out of Kuwait. That was a true international  
coalition. The world saw the right and joined together. That was not  
the case in Iraq. The Iraq Invasion "coalition" was a joke. Britain  
joined us for obvious political reasons.
> > It seems to me that if Sadaam had possessed WMDs, that his neighbors
> > such as Iran would have been alarmed and would have joined us to
> > neutralize him.
>
> Surely you jest.
> Why would Iran do that...would you not sit back and watch two of your
> enemies duke it out?

Iran had fought Iraq for many years and was depleted. Iraq is  
surrounded by many other countries, all of which would by any level of  
common sense have supported any effort to dethrone Sadaam if in fact  
he were seen as a dangerous threat to regional stability, which would  
certainly have been the case if he had WMD.