No French and German troops in Iraq, ever

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-09-27 05:13pm

I don't see why Germany should send troops into Iraq.
We didn't want this war, we didn't participate in it, and we didn't "break" it.
We're sending troops to Afganistan, which is enough.
And it would be the death of any re-election plans Schröder really has. As the article pointed out, this war is ssen as an exclusively American, more to the Point Bush-ian, affair and none of our concern.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2004-09-27 06:48pm

I agree. France and Germany have no reason to send troops. They didn't even want us to go in the first place, so why the hell should they join in?

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-09-28 07:37am

Well France and Germany can send troops to Darfur instead so that the UN does not prove it's total uselessness.

A civil war in Iraq is a possibility certainly. But leaving before having built up the goverment and security apparatus would make a civil war a certainty. So far the main probems are the Sunni and their A-Q allies, not being pleased at no merly being equal to the rest without the priviledges they are used to they are the most troublesome gang. Appart from the lunatic fringe of the Shia the situation there is quite good, the citizens of Najaf is quite pleased to be rid of the troublesome mosqe occuping madmen. The Kurds are doing quite well, most of the trouble there come from A-Q & Baathist attacks on the Kurds.

Frankly the current doom and gloom reporting from Iraq reminds me of the reporting during the war where the ambush of a supply convoy dominated the headlines as proof of the imminent US defeat for a week and the worlds press corps accepted the Iraqi propaganda at face value and doubted anything from the US forces.

IMPO the terrorists desperate efforts to halt the reconstrucion effort and the organization of a new Iraqi state is just that, desperate. They can't win on the battlefield but they can win in the media.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-28 11:30am

Stormbringer wrote:And so much for allies.

Allies are supposed to come to your aid when you are attacked. Many of your allies did that after the WTC attack, in Afghanistan against Al-Quaeda and the Taliban. But despite Bush's most fervent wishes, Iraq never did attack or threaten the United States, nor was it involved in the aforementioned WTC attack. And after Bush's idiotic histrionics, it is doubtful whether anyone would wish to come to your aid in future conflicts even if there is a legitimate reason, because we got precisely JACK SHIT in the way of thanks for coming to your aid in Afghanistan.

Canada, for example, did everything in its limited power to help the US after the WTC attacks, and what did we get for it? We're called "Canuckistan", we get boycotted for not supporting the Iraq war, and tariffs are slapped on our products left and right. You're welcome.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-28 12:29pm

Joe wrote:link

Well, I guess that puts an end to Kerry's nonsense about bringing our "allies" back to us so they'll help us in Iraq.

Ah yes, because Bush's fuck-ups are Kerry's fault. Amazing how you can take this development, which is purely the result of Bush's foreign policy, and spin it into a jab against Kerry, as if he could possibly help this.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-09-28 12:46pm

Durandal wrote:Ah yes, because Bush's fuck-ups are Kerry's fault. Amazing how you can take this development, which is purely the result of Bush's foreign policy, and spin it into a jab against Kerry, as if he could possibly help this.

Obviously Kerry have nothing to do with it but it also wreck his plans to get others involved in Iraq doesn't it? Kerry is running with that ball IIRC, not Bush - having kicked it out in the parking lot in frustration a long time ago.

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-09-28 12:48pm

This is petty politics at its worst, and it sickens me. It looks like everyone across the world is just stepping back and saying, "hey, it wasn't me, it was YOU guys." This is true. But that's not the important issue here. Who started the conflict in Iraq doesn't matter when it comes to what should be done there now. There is now a problem in Iraq, a very large and serious problem that effects millions of people. The US caused the problem, but does no one else want to see it fixed? American cannot win this. Unless Shep is elected in a come-from-behind vistory in Novemeber (

) there will still be millions of angry arabs killing us and each other in Iraq. But no, no one cares. It's the US's problem. The angle that no one looks at is that it's also Iraq's problem, Iraqis will be suffering, and they are not at fault. Can the world condmen these Iraqis to the pain of civil war and fundamentalist crusades just because "the US started it and its none of our business?" Perhaps so. But IMHO, shoving Iraq to America is near-sighted, petty, and lowers the overall quality of life around the world. It certainly lowers my opinion of the governments who flatly refuse to get involved.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-28 01:00pm

CJvR wrote:
Durandal wrote:Ah yes, because Bush's fuck-ups are Kerry's fault. Amazing how you can take this development, which is purely the result of Bush's foreign policy, and spin it into a jab against Kerry, as if he could possibly help this.
Obviously Kerry have nothing to do with it but it also wreck his plans to get others involved in Iraq doesn't it? Kerry is running with that ball IIRC, not Bush - having kicked it out in the parking lot in frustration a long time ago.

And why, prior to now, was Kerry's goal to get foreign allies back on our side "nonsense," as Joe said it was? I still maintain that the world is mad at George W. Bush, not America or its people. If he gets booted this November, the world's attitude toward America will probably start to shift in a more positive direction, and that would give Kerry something to work with.

EDIT: While I believe that neither Germany nor France have any intention of sending troops to Iraq (no sensible country would, whether they like us or not), that doesn't necessarily preclude them assisting us in other capacities over there. Though at this point, it's such a clusterfuck over there that I don't think any amount of troops or money will fix it.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-09-28 01:27pm

Bugsby wrote:This is petty politics at its worst, and it sickens me. It looks like everyone across the world is just stepping back and saying, "hey, it wasn't me, it was YOU guys." This is true. But that's not the important issue here. Who started the conflict in Iraq doesn't matter when it comes to what should be done there now. There is now a problem in Iraq, a very large and serious problem that effects millions of people. The US caused the problem, but does no one else want to see it fixed?

Not only did the US do it basically alone, they also ignored any differing opinions and telling them that the plan would fail as is.
Why should we waste our resources for a clusterfuck we didn't want and didn't bring into existence?
The USA can't just go around, bomb some little country up, then go home and ask other nations if they will do the reconstruction.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-09-28 01:54pm

Look guys, the bottom line is that Bush has alienated most every other country out there with these moves of his. He has no international credibility at all. Even our biggest ally, Britain, isn't thrilled with us as Tony Blair has had to endlessly go on the defensive since siding with us on this. Its hurting his administration.

John Kerry may not be the perfect candidate but one thing he isn't is George Bush. In other words, he hasn't lost international credibility. By simply NOT being Bush, Kerry stands a much better chance of heading to the UN and saying, "Look, the previous administration got us into this quagmire but arguing that is a moot point. The situation is what it is and we need your help now to resolve it. If you come to our aid as allies, there will be direct benefits for you. First you'll be able to take part in the reconstruction (big money) and second, you have a vested interest in seeing Iraq turn out to be a positive in the end. A stable Iraq is good for all of us."

That sort of message cannot be conveyed by Bush, period.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-09-28 03:10pm

Agrajag wrote:Look guys, the bottom line is that Bush has alienated most every other country out there with these moves of his. He has no international credibility at all. Even our biggest ally, Britain, isn't thrilled with us as Tony Blair has had to endlessly go on the defensive since siding with us on this. Its hurting his administration.

John Kerry may not be the perfect candidate but one thing he isn't is George Bush. In other words, he hasn't lost international credibility. By simply NOT being Bush, Kerry stands a much better chance of heading to the UN and saying, "Look, the previous administration got us into this quagmire but arguing that is a moot point. The situation is what it is and we need your help now to resolve it. If you come to our aid as allies, there will be direct benefits for you. First you'll be able to take part in the reconstruction (big money) and second, you have a vested interest in seeing Iraq turn out to be a positive in the end. A stable Iraq is good for all of us."

That sort of message cannot be conveyed by Bush, period.

And the UN can do what???? Ummm Sudan.. The UN is not going to do anything untill the country is stable...

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-09-28 03:46pm

The UN can send troops to help stabilize the country. That they've done many times before. They are NOT going to do that for Bush for a war they deem as illegal. You saw the reception he got from the UN. I was glad to finally see him get a taste of some reality for a change. For once he wasn't in front of a bunch of pre-screened automatons that just follow the party line.

Kerry would not have that problem. In addition, Kerry will have the ability to approach our allies and make peace with them over the issue along with getting their help.

What I continually see from the Right is negativity. Kerry has options while Bush can only sit around and try and cast blame all over the place. With the Right it's all about deflecting criticism and casting blame. I've yet to hear a single real solution to anything from anyone on that side.

The argument that Bush is doing everything Kerry says he wants is a JOKE. Bush is TRYING to do what Kerry wants to do but he can't get anywhere because he alienated everyone. It's like OJ trying to convince the Goldman family to let him spend Thanksgiving with them.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-28 11:09pm

Bugsby wrote:This is petty politics at its worst, and it sickens me. It looks like everyone across the world is just stepping back and saying, "hey, it wasn't me, it was YOU guys." This is true. But that's not the important issue here.

No, the important issue is that we don't want our sons and daughters sent off to die in someone else's war. And the point here is that this is George W. Bush's war, not ours. We feel bad for the people of Iraq, but that doesn't mean we want our sons and daughters going over there to die in order to pay for George W. Bush's mistakes, particularly when the Bush Administration has shown precisely jack shit in the way of gratitude when people do choose to help (as demonstrated most eloquently in the example of Canada).

Who started the conflict in Iraq doesn't matter when it comes to what should be done there now. There is now a problem in Iraq, a very large and serious problem that effects millions of people. The US caused the problem, but does no one else want to see it fixed?

Sure, we want to see it fixed. And we expect the Americans to fix it, since they're the ones who overwhelmingly supported this stupidity in the first place. Remember those polls? The cheering crowds?

American cannot win this.

So? Nobody can "win" this at this point. It's a quagmire.

Unless Shep is elected in a come-from-behind vistory in Novemeber ( ) there will still be millions of angry arabs killing us and each other in Iraq. But no, no one cares. It's the US's problem. The angle that no one looks at is that it's also Iraq's problem, Iraqis will be suffering, and they are not at fault. Can the world condmen these Iraqis to the pain of civil war and fundamentalist crusades just because "the US started it and its none of our business?" Perhaps so. But IMHO, shoving Iraq to America is near-sighted, petty, and lowers the overall quality of life around the world. It certainly lowers my opinion of the governments who flatly refuse to get involved.

If the involvement of these governments would magically turn this quagmire into a happy society, you might have a point. But quite frankly, that's total bullshit and you know it. The only thing that our involvement would change is the flags on the uniforms of the corpses in the bodybags. And precedent shows that we wouldn't get an ounce of gratitude from the Bush Administration for it.

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-09-29 12:20am

You're right. This IS Geroge W. Bush's war. It's not America's war. It was his idea from the beginning, and his manipulation of public opinion post-9/11, his abuse of the nation's pain, that led to this war. There were cheering crowds for the war, but there were also the biggest protests in history against it. Bush fucked up. He fucked up bad. He fucked up so bad and he cant even admit he fucked up bad because there goes his political career, and to Dubya, the political career is all that matters. So why should America have to pay for Bush's mistake? Many of the soldiers in Iraq don't support the war at all. They don't want to fight Bush's stupid war just as much as all of you outside the US don't want to fight this war. Is it fair to say that "We don't want to die, but because you have a crazy president, YOU have to?" I dont think so. The entire country should NOT have to pay for one man's dementia. But that's all just a sidenote. Let's look at alternatives:

1) America stays in Iraq the way it is now. Bodies continue to pile up, peace is never established. It's Nam all over again.

2) America pulls the hell out of there. Game over, man, game over. Iraq degenerates into a lawless hellhole, with no peaceful resolution in sight. Once order finally is established, it is under another crackpot dictator who is worse than Sadaam.

3) America keeps the same troops in Iraq that it has now, but also gets aid from its allies around the world. The number of troops in Iraq goes up by a factor of ten, and although resistance among the population is strong, there is at least a chance of success.

It's my opinion that the third one is best. It will never happen, never in a million years, because it would be political suicide for whatever foreign leader stood up and said "we're going to help America." Yet it would be the best solution in terms of restoring peace in the world. Sending aid would be sending people off to die, but there are already thousands of Iraqis dying in this war. Your countrymen are not superior to the Iraqi countrymen. Maybe I'm just an idealist about this, but I think that if Iraq has a problem, the world has a problem. Why should Canada send troops to Iraq? Because Canada is a member of the world community. Iraqi civilians are human beings just like Canadians... or Germans, or Brits, or anyone else. "But Bush started this war, not us." I agree. When it's all over, you have my personal permission to go and fuck Bush up the ass, again and again. Make him feel pain because of the pain that he's caused for his own selfish reasons. But don't make the Iraqi people suffer because Bush is a moron. They have already suffered enough because of that.

I am fully aware that this sounds like crazy idealistic ranting. But I think that we need to hold onto our ideals, or else the world will grind us down. Accept what can't be changed. CHANGE WHAT YOU CAN.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-29 12:38am

Bugsby wrote:You're right. This IS Geroge W. Bush's war. It's not America's war. It was his idea from the beginning, and his manipulation of public opinion post-9/11, his abuse of the nation's pain, that led to this war. There were cheering crowds for the war, but there were also the biggest protests in history against it. Bush fucked up. He fucked up bad. He fucked up so bad and he cant even admit he fucked up bad because there goes his political career, and to Dubya, the political career is all that matters. So why should America have to pay for Bush's mistake? Many of the soldiers in Iraq don't support the war at all. They don't want to fight Bush's stupid war just as much as all of you outside the US don't want to fight this war. Is it fair to say that "We don't want to die, but because you have a crazy president, YOU have to?" I dont think so. The entire country should NOT have to pay for one man's dementia.

Obviously, you do not understand the concept of the Republic. America voted him into office, America overwhelmingly supported the decision to go to war (noisy minority protests aside, the vast majority supported it), and while the excuse that he fooled the people might be good political theatre, why was it that everybody outside the US was not fooled? The fact is that the American People made this happen. Do you think Bush would have gone in if the majority of the American people were against it?

But that's all just a sidenote. Let's look at alternatives:

1) America stays in Iraq the way it is now. Bodies continue to pile up, peace is never established. It's Nam all over again.

2) America pulls the hell out of there. Game over, man, game over. Iraq degenerates into a lawless hellhole, with no peaceful resolution in sight. Once order finally is established, it is under another crackpot dictator who is worse than Sadaam.

3) America keeps the same troops in Iraq that it has now, but also gets aid from its allies around the world. The number of troops in Iraq goes up by a factor of ten, and although resistance among the population is strong, there is at least a chance of success.

Number of troops up by a factor of ten?!?!?!? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!! You honestly think that France, Germany, et al. could actually send more than a million men to Iraq even if they loved George W. Bush as much as Tony Blair does? I know facts can't compete with your delusional fantasies, but still I must try.

It's my opinion that the third one is best. It will never happen, never in a million years, because it would be political suicide for whatever foreign leader stood up and said "we're going to help America."

There's also that little detail about it being impossible irrespective of any political concerns.

Yet it would be the best solution in terms of restoring peace in the world. Sending aid would be sending people off to die, but there are already thousands of Iraqis dying in this war. Your countrymen are not superior to the Iraqi countrymen. Maybe I'm just an idealist about this, but I think that if Iraq has a problem, the world has a problem. Why should Canada send troops to Iraq? Because Canada is a member of the world community. Iraqi civilians are human beings just like Canadians... or Germans, or Brits, or anyone else. "But Bush started this war, not us." I agree. When it's all over, you have my personal permission to go and fuck Bush up the ass, again and again. Make him feel pain because of the pain that he's caused for his own selfish reasons. But don't make the Iraqi people suffer because Bush is a moron. They have already suffered enough because of that.

Let me repeat my argument from the last post, which obviously went over your head because you were busy engaging in your insane delusional fantasies about France and Germany having more than a million men available to send to Iraq:

If the involvement of these governments would magically turn this quagmire into a happy society, you might have a point. But quite frankly, that's total bullshit and you know it. The only thing that our involvement would change is the flags on the uniforms of the corpses in the bodybags. And precedent shows that we wouldn't get an ounce of gratitude from the Bush Administration for it.

Read it this time.

I am fully aware that this sounds like crazy idealistic ranting. But I think that we need to hold onto our ideals, or else the world will grind us down. Accept what can't be changed. CHANGE WHAT YOU CAN.

This is not about ideals; this is about the difference between facts and insane delusional ravings.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-09-29 12:53am

Hell, the entire EU does not have 1 million ground troops, period. Your're only going to get that kind of manpower if you go to China, and they're obviously not going to send troops either, and even if they did, it wouldn't be anywhere near a fraction of 1 million, not that they could afford to deploy that many to another country. Look how hard America is finding it to keep 100,000 troops deployed over there...

In short Bugsby, this is America's mess (not just Shrubby's), and America should clean it up. Anyone who is willing to help is more than welcome to, but no country should be faulted for refusing to do so...

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-09-29 12:54am

America voted him into office

Correction. The Supreme Court voted him into office. The American people voted Al Gore into office.

America overwhelmingly supported the decision to go to war (noisy minority protests aside, the vast majority supported it

The American people were told that Iraq was an imminent threat and had weapons of mass destruction and planned to use them against us. Of course the people here supported putting that down. Of course many also believed our commander-in-chief when he claimed all this. Now that he's been proven wrong in every case, he should act like a commander-in-chief and say, "It was my fault. I should have done a better job leading the country down the right path and find the right information. The buck stops here." He can't do that because he knows he has nothing else to run on so he'd be out on his ass.

Do you think Bush would have gone in if the majority of the American people were against it?

You nearly answered your own question there! Of COURSE he wouldn't have gone if the majority of Americans were against it, thus the need for motivation they would understand--fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-09-29 01:03am

Darth Wong wrote:Obviously, you do not understand the concept of the Republic. America voted him into office, America overwhelmingly supported the decision to go to war (noisy minority protests aside, the vast majority supported it), and while the excuse that he fooled the people might be good political theatre, why was it that everybody outside the US was not fooled? The fact is that the American People made this happen. Do you think Bush would have gone in if the majority of the American people were against it?

And do you honsetly think that the American People would have supported the war if Bush had been against it? Do not underestimate this man's ability to manipulate public opinion. Nevertheless, you do have a point, and I am willing to concede that it was America that went to war. I just wanted to get it on the record that this was not the American people overwhelmingly asking George Bush to take them to Iraq. This was George Bush who told the American people that they NEEDED to go to Iraq when the American people were in a vulerable position and ready to believe that. And the American people said ok. Why was it that the rest of the world was not fooled? Because al Qaeda didnt fly two planes into the Eifel Tower. America was attacked, so it was Americans who acted emotionally and irrationally in supporting the war.

Number of troops up by a factor of ten?!?!?!? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!! You honestly think that France, Germany, et al. could actually send more than a million men to Iraq even if they loved George W. Bush as much as Tony Blair does? I know facts can't compete with your delusional fantasies, but still I must try.

Fine, not a factor of ten. But if every nation- not just France and Germany- commited an amount of troops to Iraq proportional in size to the amount America sent, there would be at least three times as many troops there, if not more. I don't have the military mobilization capabilities of every country that professes to be an ally of the United States at my fingertips, but I am fairly certain it would be a significant number.

There's also that little detail about it being impossible irrespective of any political concerns.

Maybe.

Let me repeat my argument from the last post, which obviously went over your head because you were busy engaging in your insane delusional fantasies about France and Germany having more than a million men available to send to Iraq:

If the involvement of these governments would magically turn this quagmire into a happy society, you might have a point. But quite frankly, that's total bullshit and you know it. The only thing that our involvement would change is the flags on the uniforms of the corpses in the bodybags. And precedent shows that we wouldn't get an ounce of gratitude from the Bush Administration for it.

Read it this time.

I did read it last time, but didn't address it because I marked it as speculation. I still do. You are convinced you are right. I am not so sure. The siutation is tangled, but I cannot believe that if the weight of the world went into stabilizing Iraq no progress could be made. It might not be a perfect peace - a more likely scenario is an Israel/Palestine case where there is violence but at the same time there is order. I don't think anyone can go any make Iraq into a happy peaceful country. But I do think that increased aid and troops can eliminate the insurgents and establish some modicum of a rule of law. And if Bush is an ass about it? So what? It's not my fault Bush is an asshole. The IRAQI PEOPLE will thank you for stabilizing their nation, and that should be enough.

This is not about ideals; this is about the difference between facts and insane delusional ravings.

Cut me just a little bit of slack here, please. At this point, everything is just speculation. But do you outright deny that more money and more troops could help at all? That's all I'm asserting. Iraq is a terrible place right now, but it seems to me that resigning it to endless bloodshed without hope isn't stating facts, it's blatant pessimism.

I guess in the end we will have a fundamental agreement on whether any progress can be made in Iraq. I think that progress can be made. You, obviously, do not. Yes, I watch the news, I listen to the reports, I know what is going on. And I think that the situation is salvagable.

Once again, excuse my optimism. I forgot that hope was taboo on this forum.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-09-29 01:11am

Agrajag wrote:The UN can send troops to help stabilize the country.
That they've done many times before.

Oh, yes of course: the glorius UN peacekeepers that were beaten by a small band of petty thugs in Seirra Leone

. And name a few instances where the UN has actually helped in stabilizing a country? All I seem to remember is stuff like the UN's failure to prevent the genocide in Rwanda, or to protect the "safe zones" in Sudan, it's failure to enforce it's resolutions against Saddam, and it's inability to do anything meaningful to stop America's almost unilateral war in Iraq.

Kerry would not have that problem. In addition, Kerry will have the ability to approach our allies and make peace with them over the issue along with getting their help.

It doesn't matter if Kerry will have that problem or not. The UN for all intents and purposes, is powerless and useless, and thus will not be able to change the situation in Iraq, no matter how hard it tries.

What I continually see from the Right is negativity. Kerry has options while Bush can only sit around and try and cast blame all over the place. With the Right it's all about deflecting criticism and casting blame. I've yet to hear a single real solution to anything from anyone on that side.

And I've yet to see a real solution on how Kerry's going to solve Iraq. Many other countries do see this as America's, (not just Dubya's) mess. Remember how France and Germany said they would not change their minds about sending troops to Iraq even if Kerry was elected?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-09-29 01:21am

Sadly, when I see arguments like "We need to send more troops." "We need to pump more money in there." it echoes so strongly what I read about Vietnam and the defenders of the war's suggestions.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-29 01:26am

Bugsby wrote:And do you honsetly think that the American People would have supported the war if Bush had been against it? Do not underestimate this man's ability to manipulate public opinion. Nevertheless, you do have a point, and I am willing to concede that it was America that went to war. I just wanted to get it on the record that this was not the American people overwhelmingly asking George Bush to take them to Iraq. This was George Bush who told the American people that they NEEDED to go to Iraq when the American people were in a vulerable position and ready to believe that. And the American people said ok.

None of which refutes the fact that the American people cannot pass the buck and pretend that they can't be blamed for this.

Why was it that the rest of the world was not fooled? Because al Qaeda didnt fly two planes into the Eifel Tower. America was attacked, so it was Americans who acted emotionally and irrationally in supporting the war.

See above. And by the way, Europe has been living with terrorism for a lot longer than America has. Why do you assume that tragedy should automatically make people uncritically accept everything that drips from their leader's mouth? The leader of Spain tried to use tragedy to dupe his people and got butt-fucked for it; not every country follows the same patterns of behaviour.

Fine, not a factor of ten. But if every nation- not just France and Germany- commited an amount of troops to Iraq proportional in size to the amount America sent, there would be at least three times as many troops there, if not more. I don't have the military mobilization capabilities of every country that professes to be an ally of the United States at my fingertips, but I am fairly certain it would be a significant number.

More bullshit. America has the most force projection capability in the world of any nation by far.

There's also that little detail about it being impossible irrespective of any political concerns.
Maybe.

Those must be some incredible drugs you're on.

Let me repeat my argument from the last post, which obviously went over your head because you were busy engaging in your insane delusional fantasies about France and Germany having more than a million men available to send to Iraq:

If the involvement of these governments would magically turn this quagmire into a happy society, you might have a point. But quite frankly, that's total bullshit and you know it. The only thing that our involvement would change is the flags on the uniforms of the corpses in the bodybags. And precedent shows that we wouldn't get an ounce of gratitude from the Bush Administration for it.

Read it this time.
I did read it last time, but didn't address it because I marked it as speculation. I still do. You are convinced you are right. I am not so sure.

You are not so sure that the involvement of France and Germany wouldn't magically turn Iraq into a happy society? As I said, you must be on some amazing drugs.

The siutation is tangled, but I cannot believe that if the weight of the world went into stabilizing Iraq no progress could be made. It might not be a perfect peace - a more likely scenario is an Israel/Palestine case where there is violence but at the same time there is order. I don't think anyone can go any make Iraq into a happy peaceful country. But I do think that increased aid and troops can eliminate the insurgents and establish some modicum of a rule of law. And if Bush is an ass about it? So what? It's not my fault Bush is an asshole. The IRAQI PEOPLE will thank you for stabilizing their nation, and that should be enough.

What you do not understand is that it is YOUR argument which is entirely predicated upon unsupported assumptions. You assume that a few NATO countries could actually triple the number of troops in Iraq. You assume that their help would actually solve the problem (note: the USSR had some 175,000 troops in Afghanistan). And then you dismiss criticism because you feel it is too speculative?

Cut me just a little bit of slack here, please. At this point, everything is just speculation. But do you outright deny that more money and more troops could help at all? That's all I'm asserting.

And what I'm asserting is that the enormous volume of money and troops it would take to clean up this mess (even if we assume that it would work) is simply not available. This is not speculation: you do not seem to realize that the US single-handedly represents most of NATO's military power, rather than being such a small part that France and Germany could triple the US's manpower on the ground.

Iraq is a terrible place right now, but it seems to me that resigning it to endless bloodshed without hope isn't stating facts, it's blatant pessimism.

He who derides realism as pessimism is living in a fantasy world.

I guess in the end we will have a fundamental agreement on whether any progress can be made in Iraq. I think that progress can be made. You, obviously, do not. Yes, I watch the news, I listen to the reports, I know what is going on. And I think that the situation is salvagable.

Based on claims about availability of money and manpower which are totally false, in conjunction with assumptions about their presumed effectiveness. You'll have to forgive me if I don't see how you have made a case for yourself here.

Once again, excuse my optimism. I forgot that hope was taboo on this forum.

Don't be an idiot. You can't legitimize false claims and delusional unrealistic ravings by simply calling them "optimism".

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-09-29 02:02am

Ok, so that's our source of differentiation: Force numbers available to NATO. I don't know that you're right, but then again, I can't say you're wrong, either, seeing as how I don't have the force capabilities of every NATO nation in an easy-to-read spreadsheet on my desk. I have never before heard that NATO was really too weak to make a difference (and lets try to make this about all of NATO, not keep strawmanning my argument to say that France and Germany will fight the war for us), but then again, growing up in "the last superpower" has colored my mental image on what the average military might of any nation is. However, if it is the case that NATO truly is impotent (and I am entertaining the possibility that it is), I would have to agree with you on most points. If the resources truly are not available to stabilize Iraq at all, then foreign nations should not get involved. This does not change the fact that the US cannot win the war by itself, and if there is ANY hope of restoring order, it is only with foreign aid; whether this has anything to do with the matter at hand is up to whether or not you want to continue to pursue it.

The only thing that I still strongly disagree with you on is your insistance on placing this war on all of America, then saying that we are trying to pass the bill off. First, Kerry is not proposing that we pass the bill off. He simply wants help in paying it. US involvement will not go down at all if our allies join, but US involvement is not enough by itself. Hence the request for aid. Second, you still try to make this war a function of the American mindset. You cite Spainish leadership as being unable to exploit the terrorism that hit their country. Two differences: first, Bush and Rove are not heading the PR campaign in Spain. Second, at the time it was painfully obvious what Spain was trying to do because Bush had just gotten called on manipulating the masses through terror.

Your entire argument along this line insults me (intentionally?). You seem to say that Americans DESERVE to be dieing in Iraq because they were too STUPID to see through Bush's smokescreen. That's not the case at all. Bush put up a very good fuckin smoke screen. You don't seem to realize how powerful a message "Iraq wants to kill millions of Americans" is right after a tragedy like 9/11. Few were even allowed to be skeptical. I was shouted down whenever I tried to protest by people whose ONLY argument was that Iraq had WMD, and wanted to use it against us. These people no longer believe in the war now that they know their ONE REASON for supporting it was a LIE. The people who still do support Bush do so because they believe he was tricked himself by the CIA or something like that. Either that or they are too blindly partisan to care. Don't try to hit me with parallel cases, because there really aren't too many of them. Wait, I have one. When Hitler decalred martial law because of the bombing of the parliament building. Were all the Germans evil Nazi bastards who wanted a megalomanical dictator in power? Or were they simply scared and willing to follow a strong leader who seemed at the time to have all the answers.

You can hold whatever prejudices you want against America, I don't care. But do NOT try to tell me that every American that died in this war deserves it because Americans as a whole are a breed of gullible idiots who blindly followed Bush into the war. America supported the war only because it was told things by George W. Bush that were not true.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-09-29 05:00am

Bugsby wrote:Fine, not a factor of ten. But if every nation- not just France and Germany- commited an amount of troops to Iraq proportional in size to the amount America sent, there would be at least three times as many troops there, if not more. I don't have the military mobilization capabilities of every country that professes to be an ally of the United States at my fingertips, but I am fairly certain it would be a significant number.

In order to send that many troops, if we were willing in the first place, would mean to reduce our presence in other locations, like Afghanistan, as Germany frankly can't afford to field that many troops in that many countries.
We do not have the same level of financial support of the military as the US does as it has a low priority compared to our social programmes. And if you think we would cut even some millions from them for military, think again...

Wired_Grenadier · Post by **Wired_Grenadier** » 2004-09-29 05:37am

Bugsby wrote:Ok, so that's our source of differentiation: Force numbers available to NATO. I don't know that you're right, but then again, I can't say you're wrong, either, seeing as how I don't have the force capabilities of every NATO nation in an easy-to-read spreadsheet on my desk. I have never before heard that NATO was really too weak to make a difference (and lets try to make this about all of NATO, not keep strawmanning my argument to say that France and Germany will fight the war for us), but then again, growing up in "the last superpower" has colored my mental image on what the average military might of any nation is.

The only country that theoretically could send in a larger amount of troops easily to aid the US is Turkey, because they have a direct land connection. But any reasonable mind knows that would never happen. Instead of stabilizing the situation Turkish troops would get bogged down in an endless guerilla war in the rather autonomous Kurdish provinces who would consider such a military presence a clear act of war. Furthermore, the Turkish population would never back this. It is far more likely that the country itself would decend into turmoil.
The other NATO powers simply lack the force projection capabilities and long-range transports to support a force larger than ~10.000 (speaking for France & Germany), and very likely also simply do not have the necessary equipment to fight a guerilla war ina desert country.

[qoute]However, if it is the case that NATO truly is impotent (and I am entertaining the possibility that it is), I would have to agree with you on most points. If the resources truly are not available to stabilize Iraq at all, then foreign nations should not get involved. This does not change the fact that the US cannot win the war by itself, and if there is ANY hope of restoring order, it is only with foreign aid; whether this has anything to do with the matter at hand is up to whether or not you want to continue to pursue it.[/quote]
You wanted it, you started it, now deal with it.
I supported the war against Iraq, even though it had nothing to do with the global war against terror. Taking down the Ba'ath-regime and Saddam Hussein and transforming the country into a democracy sounded good enough for me. But for the clusterfuck that happened you are responsible, you alone.

The only thing that I still strongly disagree with you on is your insistance on placing this war on all of America, then saying that we are trying to pass the bill off. First, Kerry is not proposing that we pass the bill off. He simply wants help in paying it.

Which more or less means the same. Bringing in the UN to run the country, and bringing in your "Allies" to pay for it. But no, you aren't passing off the bill.

US involvement will not go down at all if our allies join, but US involvement is not enough by itself. Hence the request for aid. Second, you still try to make this war a function of the American mindset. You cite Spainish leadership as being unable to exploit the terrorism that hit their country. Two differences: first, Bush and Rove are not heading the PR campaign in Spain. Second, at the time it was painfully obvious what Spain was trying to do because Bush had just gotten called on manipulating the masses through terror.

The difference he meant was that while literally all of Europe has gotten used to live with terror from time to time, the USA is far more easy to manipulate because it lacks the experience of having to deal with terror in its homeland. If you live with 30 years of ETA-bombings, you know what you can expect.

Your entire argument along this line insults me (intentionally?). You seem to say that Americans DESERVE to be dieing in Iraq because they were too STUPID to see through Bush's smokescreen. That's not the case at all. Bush put up a very good fuckin smoke screen. You don't seem to realize how powerful a message "Iraq wants to kill millions of Americans" is right after a tragedy like 9/11.

Neither Mike nor I are saying Americans deserve to die there. But to be bluntly honest, better your men die in a conflict you fucked up than ours. And the fact that the American public didn't see through that amateurish excuse for a reason to go to war more or less doesn't rise its image in my view. And Iraq started more than one and a half year after 9/11. "Iraq wants to kill millions of Americans", yeah, fine, so do probably a hundred and fifty million muslims all around the globe, and yet there is a striking similarity. Neither of them has the capabilities to do so, and that was bloody obvious to everybody who cared beforehand!

You can hold whatever prejudices you want against America, I don't care. But do NOT try to tell me that every American that died in this war deserves it because Americans as a whole are a breed of gullible idiots who blindly followed Bush into the war. America supported the war only because it was told things by George W. Bush that were not true.

Those lies were damn obvious to everyone with eyes and a working mind. And those Americans died because your leadership in all its hubris foolishly decided to push aside the concerns of the Pentagon and the people who know a bit or two about warfare and occupying a country and went by the Rummy-way of warfare (Deltas and Missile Launchers! Yay!). I'm not saying those servicemen deserve to die, for sure I'm not. I got relatives in the forces who right now are at the Gulf. But for following such retarded plans, you Americans should hold your leadership, and your Congressmen who supported the plans responsbible.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-09-29 06:18am

Bugsby wrote:Ok, so that's our source of differentiation: Force numbers available to NATO. I don't know that you're right, but then again, I can't say you're wrong, either, seeing as how I don't have the force capabilities of every NATO nation in an easy-to-read spreadsheet on my desk.

Bitchwhinemoan... Can't bring any better rebuttal than that? Well, I'll tell you something: Mike's figures while not maybe exact, are very near the mark. Yours were off by an order of magnitude. All it really takes is actually taking a few minutes to check things instead of pulling numbers out of your arse, and if you were too lazy to do that, you deserve the smackdown you get.

Bugsby wrote:I have never before heard that NATO was really too weak to make a difference (and lets try to make this about all of NATO, not keep strawmanning my argument to say that France and Germany will fight the war for us), but then again, growing up in "the last superpower" has colored my mental image on what the average military might of any nation is.

This is bloody fucking obvious. No, NATO is not impotent. That might have something to do with the fact that the US provides between 70 and 90 percent of NATOs military capability, and certainly around 90% of its force projection capability. The rest of the NATO member countries (Britain excluded) have little to no force projection ability and can basicaly just turtle up and make things difficult for anybody who wants to project force on them while they wait for the US to drop the heavy end of the hammer on the offender. It was formed as a defensive alliance against the Soviet Union, if you remember..

Bugsby wrote:However, if it is the case that NATO truly is impotent (and I am entertaining the possibility that it is), I would have to agree with you on most points. If the resources truly are not available to stabilize Iraq at all, then foreign nations should not get involved. This does not change the fact that the US cannot win the war by itself, and if there is ANY hope of restoring order, it is only with foreign aid; whether this has anything to do with the matter at hand is up to whether or not you want to continue to pursue it.

Again, the NATO is as impotent as the US determines it to be through its actions. The other memebers' presence in Iraq is only going to havea marginal effect because they are unable to commit the required numbers of troops. Many of them have very small militaries, and many of them have conscript militaries, and you DO NOT want to know what kind of a clusterfuck putting troops like that in there would result in. Fact of the matter is, the only place that has enough troops to do the job is America, but now that the occupation has been fucked up for so long and so thoroughly, Washington is showing cold feet and all signs of wanting to extricate itself from the mess and shove as much of it on others to fix as possible. Thanks, but no thanks, Europe is not going to clean up the mess in Iraq. Frankly, it is not far enough in the national interest of most EU countries to send our people to die in there for an American cause.

Bugsby wrote:The only thing that I still strongly disagree with you on is your insistance on placing this war on all of America, then saying that we are trying to pass the bill off. First, Kerry is not proposing that we pass the bill off. He simply wants help in paying it.

Why the fuck are we supposed to pay for American mistakes? Remember, a lot of European nations were eager to help with the rebuilding stuff after the Saddam regime had been toppled and while things were still relatively stable. They were told to fuck off while all rebuilding contracts were handed out to well-connected American companies without bidding. Only now that things are going to hell in a handbasket is the US asking, wheedling, pleading and even whining for help, and frankly, it's not going to get it. Doesn't matter even if Kerry is elected, most countries would be more willing to help him out, but Bush's policy and decisions have fucked up the conditions in Iraq so badly that it is a political impossibility to do so anymore.

Bugsby wrote:US involvement will not go down at all if our allies join, but US involvement is not enough by itself. Hence the request for aid.

Sure, it won'tm keep telling yourself that. Just like US involvement didn't go down in Afghanistan when NATO members and even non-members assumed more of a responsibility there. US presence was cut down and troops withdrawn so Bush could hare off on his crusade to Iraq, and as a result, the place is almost as much of a shithole as it was under the Taliban.

Bugsby wrote:Second, you still try to make this war a function of the American mindset.

Well, what the hell caused it then? If we really want to be precise, it was caused by the American neo-conservative wanking wetdreams that were based on pile of false assumptions founded firmly in midair in a hurricane.

Bugsby wrote:You cite Spainish leadership as being unable to exploit the terrorism that hit their country. Two differences: first, Bush and Rove are not heading the PR campaign in Spain. Second, at the time it was painfully obvious what Spain was trying to do because Bush had just gotten called on manipulating the masses through terror.

First, Bush and Rove would have been laughed out of there if they had been running the PR show, the Spanish electorate is actually better informed on the relevant issues than the American ones, so their inept lies would not have taken any root. Second, in addition to your point, the media in Spain actually has enough of a backbone not to swallow everything without examining it first, and Aznar was very unpopular because of his support of Bush, so people had a reason to suspect that there could be an Iraq link to the bombings.

Bugsby wrote:Your entire argument along this line insults me (intentionally?).

Quite intentionaly, by my reckoning, and you fucking well deserve every last insult included there and quite a few more besides. You brought it on yourself. Ignorance is not frowned upon on this board if the ignorant person freely admits it, but if you first pull arguments out of your arse try to bluster about while showing total ignorance of the subject, you WILL get flamed and you DESERVE to get flamed.

Bugsby wrote:You seem to say that Americans DESERVE to be dieing in Iraq because they were too STUPID to see through Bush's smokescreen.

No, what he's saying is that Americans are dying because your country as a whole was too stupid to see through the obvious bullshit put out by the Bush administration, and that it is not anybody else's responsibility to fix the mess for the US. The American servicemen do not deserve to be kiled and maimed in Iraq, they actually deserve a competent commander-in-chief, but because they have an incompetent one, things are as they are. Deal with it.

Bugsby wrote:That's not the case at all. Bush put up a very good fuckin smoke screen.

Bwaaahahahahaaaaaaa! You have to be taking some seriously powerful mind-altering substances in significant quantities if you believe that. Bush's smokescreen did not stand up to any kind of even cursory scrutiny, and almost everyone here (here being Europe) could tell right off the bat that the stuff coming out of the White House was pure propaganda and lies. The fact that your media is so fucking spineless that it would accept the bullshit at face value and not do any research of its own into the matter is not our problem. Neither is the fact that the American public positively wolfed down the gung-ho rhetoric without ever questioning the motives or the claims.

Bugsby wrote:You don't seem to realize how powerful a message "Iraq wants to kill millions of Americans" is right after a tragedy like 9/11.

Powerful only for those too fucking stupid to ask the simple question of "How will they accomplish that?" 9/11 had already happened and it was a one-shot trick. It would work once, and never again.

Bugsby wrote:Few were even allowed to be skeptical. I was shouted down whenever I tried to protest by people whose ONLY argument was that Iraq had WMD, and wanted to use it against us.

The spineless incompetence of American media is again not anybody else's problem. Neither is the fact that you didn't stand up for yourself powerfully enough. Besides, this argument of yours just demonstrates that a majority of Americans are fucking morons where international politics and threats to American security are concerned.

Bugsby wrote:These people no longer believe in the war now that they know their ONE REASON for supporting it was a LIE.

Good for them. Now maybe they'll think more carefully the next time somebody tries to tell convince them of something that important and refuses to provide any evidence for it.

Bugsby wrote:The people who still do support Bush do so because they believe he was tricked himself by the CIA or something like that. Either that or they are too blindly partisan to care.

I.e. they're fucking morons.

Bugsby wrote:Don't try to hit me with parallel cases, because there really aren't too many of them. Wait, I have one. When Hitler decalred martial law because of the bombing of the parliament building. Were all the Germans evil Nazi bastards who wanted a megalomanical dictator in power? Or were they simply scared and willing to follow a strong leader who seemed at the time to have all the answers.

It still does not absolve them of the consequences of that decision, just like Americans must now deal with the consequences of blindly following Bush, especially since there was ample evidence that his claims were bullshit.

Bugsby wrote:You can hold whatever prejudices you want against America, I don't care. But do NOT try to tell me that every American that died in this war deserves it because Americans as a whole are a breed of gullible idiots who blindly followed Bush into the war.

Nobody has been saying that the American soldiers dying and getting wounded and maimed in Iraq deserve to have that happen to them. It's happening to them because so many Americans were gullible idiots when it counted, and asking us to put ourselves on the line to absolve the US of the consequences of its actions is on the same level of stupidity.

Bugsby wrote:America supported the war only because it was told things by George W. Bush that were not true.

Are you quite done with your bitching and whining yet? There was ample evidence available that the Bush administration was peddling blatant lies, but America refused to listen. Your media refused to take the administration to task, and the American people for the most part never raised any questions, any doubts even in the face of revealed lies and blatant refusal to provide evidence for extraordinary claims. Maybe they'll not let it happen next time, but American stupidity does not abvsolve America of the consequences of that stupidity. Deal with it.

Edi

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

No French and German troops in Iraq, ever

Re: No French and German troops in Iraq, ever

Re: No French and German troops in Iraq, ever

Re: No French and German troops in Iraq, ever