T Nation

Kerry Lied!

Kerry lied!

He said that six countries have withdrawn from the coalition.

The truth is, nine countries have withdrawn from the coalition. Poland and the Ukraine are about to withdraw, too.

Lyin’ bastard! Flip-flopper!

Hey, wait a minute…I guess nine countries withdrawing makes Bush look worse than six. Never mind.

Kerry’s admission that countries are leaving the coalition completely refutes the charge of unilateralism, does it not?

Uh, Kerry said 8 countries have withdrawn.

But I see your point.

Also, Bush keeps saying that Iraqis are part of the coalition and they have borne a large percentage of casualties, (supposedly making Kerry’s charge that US troops have suffered 90% of the casualties incorrect.)

DUH??? Iraq was not part of the coalition to invade itself!!!

Bush also says that Kerry can’t lead the world by minimizing the contributions of our allies. Does the phrase “OLD EUROPE” ring a bell, Mr. President?

Thunder,

Shame on you. That is a perfect example of black and white thinking. Are you unable to imagine a larger coalition including commitments of troops and funding that are actually more sizeable.

For you black and white thinkers, we could have fifty countries providing 1 person each and we’d have a grand and effective coalition. Yep. It’s all black and white isn’t it.

The world isn’t a yes or no decision. Life is more complex than that. It might frustrate you when people raise additional complexities, but they don’t do it just to addle the brains of republicans. They do it because it reflects reality.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Kerry’s admission that countries are leaving the coalition completely refutes the charge of unilateralism, does it not?[/quote]

Yes, Kerry totally disrespects the military contributions of countries like Bora Bora…

Kerry’s “cut and run” stratagy for Iraq is scaring our allies off. Why should they send $$ and troops -if Kerry wins he will surrender faster than the French &pull all of our troops out.

Did you see how much more personable W. was?

He makes a direct connection with the people he talks to.

That ability shouldn’t be discounted when you think about the one-on-one meetings with world leaders.

I was very proud of W. last night.

JeffR

[quote]thor wrote:
Kerry’s “cut and run” stratagy for Iraq is scaring our allies off. Why should they send $$ and troops -if Kerry wins he will surrender faster than the French &pull all of our troops out. [/quote]

Kerry has never said he’d cut and run. He’s said over and over that now that we’re there we need to get out THE RIGHT WAY.

The administration hasn’t even tried this spin – get in line!

The Bush admin never even thought about getting out – he should have listened to his dad’s advice (quoted by Kerry in debate 1)

perhaps W. can directly connect with the people because a lot of americans are fat, lazy, and stupid.

Steven,

Thanks for your comment.

Plenty of muscled and successful people support W.

Arnold and me come to mind!!!

JeffR

P.S. By the way Steven, what country are you from?

[quote]StevenF wrote:
perhaps W. can directly connect with the people because a lot of americans are fat, lazy, and stupid. [/quote]

StevenF:

I think he “connects with the people” beause he is a personable individual. We are all attracted to those whom we meet that seem most warm and friendly.

I think a country that elects it’s president mainly for being a “personable individual” is in deep trouble. Republican or Democrat, people should choose a person based on their knowledgeability and important issiues(not abortions and religion). On the last debate several times Bush and Kerry(to a leser extent) evaded an actual honest answer and tried to name labels and events, use generalizations…etc Some of those could even be answered honestly without all the zig-zagging. People who “vote with their heart” are the worst, they practically make the whole point of elections irrelevant.

Yes, and people should lower their junk food intake, lift weights and keep their body weight under control. A funny thing though, people don’t!

What they do is what they have been doing since the media age has presented politicians as products. They choose the best looking product.

You don’t like it, I don’t like it…still a fact.

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Kerry has never said he’d cut and run. He’s said over and over that now that we’re there we need to get out THE RIGHT WAY.

The administration hasn’t even tried this spin – get in line!

The Bush admin never even thought about getting out – he should have listened to his dad’s advice (quoted by Kerry in debate 1)[/quote]

First Kerry said that we were right in going after Sadaam. Then he changed his mind.

He voted for the $87 billion in funding. Then he changed his mind.

He said he would get the French and the Germans to join up and we would be out of Iraq in 6-months. Then he changed his mind.

Now that he has completely dis-respected our coalition - How does he expect to build a new one? If I were Australia, or Britain - I’d pack my guys up and haul ass on November 3 if Kerry wins.

I hate to tell you Kerry-lovers this, but France is no longer a player on the world stage. This is where Sadaam made a horrible misjudgement. He should have bribed a country that actually mattered. Had he done that - he would still be in power.

Kerry is making the same mistake - France is not even close to a global player. Yet listen to Kerry and you’d think France and Germany’s approval of our operation would change everything.

Vroom,

“Shame on you. That is a perfect example of black and white thinking. Are you unable to imagine a larger coalition including commitments of troops and funding that are actually more sizeable.”

Hogwash as usual, Vroom. My point was that the charge of ‘unilateralism’ is not accurate - the proper argument for the Left is not the US acted unilaterally, but acted outside the scope of including the ‘cool kids’ in the world (Germany, France, and Kofi Annan).

The fact is the US had essentially the Anglo-American alliance (UK, Australia) along with Poland and smaller countries. Unilateralism it ain’t.

“For you black and white thinkers, we could have fifty countries providing 1 person each and we’d have a grand and effective coalition. Yep. It’s all black and white isn’t it.”

This is weak. A coalition is effective if it achieves its goals - whether it’s two or two hundred countries. As for the black and white thinking, that’s a natural instinct of people who actually make decisions and don’t have the luxury of limitless hands - ie, “on the other hand”.

“The world isn’t a yes or no decision. Life is more complex than that.”

Indeed.

“It might frustrate you when people raise additional complexities, but they don’t do it just to addle the brains of republicans. They do it because it reflects reality.”

It doesn’t frustrate me - especially when the complexities are the results of incomplete analysis. What you suggest, Vroom, is classic ‘paralysis by analyis’ - what happens when you are faced with imperfect choices but it’s your job to make them? At some point, a decision on war and peace has to be made. Complexities aside, you want leaders who aren’t waiting on the 8 ball to give them the guts to make a decision they simply don’t have to begin with.

Your faux-intellectual vanity - the assumption that you educate ninnies on the ‘realities’ that they just don’t see - is silly. My point was that a coalition of any size is not a unilateral action and critics ought not to label it as such.

As for the ‘complexities’ and ‘nuances’ of ‘coalitions’ - I’ll say that the terms ‘unilateral’ and ‘multilateral’ only describe the number of actors in a given action. The terms are morally neutral. I’d be perfectly comfortable with a ‘unilateral’ action if it was the right thing to do. Additionally, I would not support an action merely because it had multiple actors.

Of course, I understand the phrase ‘right thing to do’ gives you panic attacks, but in my mind, the number of actors in a given action does not inherently demonstrate any value, and the charge that the US acted ‘unilaterally’ is both false by definition and in measuring moral correctness.

Rainjack,

I see you are buying the party line hook line and sinker. Have you ever once listened to an explanation of how votes are generally on more than one single issue at a time?

The so called flip-flops you quote are meaningless. Just about everybody who isn’t a die hard republic knows this already. Harping on it like it matters just shows how sold you are.

Nothing wrong with being that brainwashed, er sold I mean, but maybe at some point consider learning to question what you are told by authorities. Blind trust can be dangerous.

Lumpy,

“Yes, Kerry totally disrespects the military contributions of countries like Bora Bora…”

Actually, he does. And why is the Left tolerating his international snobbishness?

thunderbolt,

Do you know the number of troops from each country in Bush’s “coalition?”

I’d be interested to see you post the number of troops in Iraq when the war started, and even now.

I’d then be interested to see if you’d consider these contributions a “strong” coalition.

RSU,

"Do you know the number of troops from each country in Bush’s “coalition?”

I have seen the numbers.

“I’d be interested to see you post the number of troops in Iraq when the war started, and even now.”

What’s your point? Spain backed out, as have several smaller contributors. So? I never suggested the Coalition hadn’t lost members.

“I’d then be interested to see if you’d consider these contributions a “strong” coalition.”

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, it’s strong merely because of the presence of an uncontestable superpower that acts as the de facto security of the Western world, plus two of the mightiest and most advanced sets of armed forces in the world (UK and Australia). I don’t mind that Bora Bora can only contribute a slingshot - the fact that they got in on the right thing to do, even if it was only a gesture of support in the country’s parliament, is appreciated.

That being said, it would wondrous if other nations would contribute more blood and treasure to the liberation and rebuilding of Iraq. Alas it was not meant to be - the UNSC is completely compromised by the ambitions of a massive inferiority complex and corrupt deals with the Devil.

So we are faced with reality that the Coalition, even if it is the Anglo-American alliance and several minor leaguers, has to finish the job without the EU, and - wait for it - the Arab League, who don’t even care enough about the plight of its fellow ‘occupied’ Arabs to lift a finger to help them out.

The coalition is technically plenty strong, per your question. At the risk of sounding macho, there isn’t a challenger to the current Coalition’s might in the world, so, there’s no shortage of strength.

The fact that an impotent France, living off the fumes of its previous glory, happens to object along with Kofi Annan, who makes Neville Chamberlain look like a belligerent warmonger, and the Arab League isn’t a concern, nor should it be.

Post the troop numbers if they are so impressive, Thunder. Lets see the impressive contributions of the coalotion members.

Rainjack
Either you can’t read or you can’t learn. Your posts are still repeating the spin from months ago. Try to keep up. For example anybody who keeps harping on the “87 billion” vote at this point just shows their own ignorance of how Congress works. By the same token I could say that Republicans voted against the 87 billion, before they voted for it.

And why was there even a need to vote for funds for body armor, seven months after the invasion? Because our troops had been sent into battle without the correct gear in the first place.

Also, France has one of the largest armies in the world, if I am not mistaken they are ranked approximately #6 as a world military power. They are most definitely in the top ten.

George Bush appeals to people but then again so does Jerry Springer. Does that mean we should elevate and celebrate Jerry Springer?