Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] Upcoming - under Dem/Obama reign - wsj

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: DSanner106 AT aol.com
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] Upcoming - under Dem/Obama reign - wsj
  • Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:48:45 EDT



In a message dated 10/28/2008 2:24:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
genegerue AT ruralize.com writes:

Large numbers of Congress people have addressed this. They were not
given proof. Why do you cling to this faint possibility?

Both the Senate and Congressional Intelligence committees were briefed with
supposedly the same info Bush et al were briefed. They read the CIA reports,
and were shown satellite photos. Why do you think
both Senate and Congress voted support for the war?? No congressman/woman
with any sense would
NOW claim they were fully informed when the voted, why do you cling to the
faint possibility that they are
telling the truth?? They are politicians, remember.



>
>> 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.
Gene, You are comparing apples and oranges here, we were going after the
terrorists who
had directly attacked our nation, that is what we told the world, and the
world let us do it. We
are the big guy on the block, why would they go in at that point?? On an
attack no less?? The
world went in defense of Kuwait, an inferior nation militarily to the big
bully Iraq. That is what
the UN agreements, and other coalition agreements are for. Token commitments
were all we needed,
we had the forces necessary to do the job. Kuwait certainly did not have the
forces to defend itself
and countries sent what was needed.


>
>> 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.
Do you pick a fight with the big kid on the block just because he is bigger
than you? I
suspect if they had attacked Syria, or Pakistan, etc etc. they would have
defended
themselves, but to just attack your neighbor because you see them in a fight
with
an outsider??? And then to join the outsider??

Drew



**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=
http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page