Homestead mailing list

[DSanner106 AT aol.com]

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)