What do you think of our current President?

[renrich]

For those who would blame the US support of regimes in Central and South America that allegedly murdered many people, let me remind you of one fact. The US and UK supported with all their might the regime of Joseph Stalin during the Second World War. Stalin was one of the worst mass murderers in history. It was worth it to defeat Hitler and the Nazis and I doubt there is much legitimate argument about that. Saddam was an evil person and the terrorists the Coalition troops are fighting in Iraq are pure evil. Can that be so wrong? Besides that, if a secure and democratic Iraq results from the coalition efforts and that circumstance lends some stability to the oil rich middle east, can that be bad? Like it or not all modern economies run on oil and to ignore that is to stick one's head in the sand. For those that are taken in by the democrat party's protestations that Bush lied to get us into the war in Iraq, you don't know much about politics in the US. The democrats know very well that Bush did not lie. They had the same information he and Tony Blair had and most of them voted for the war. The only reason they claim he lied is that it plays well with their ignorant constituents and suits their political gameplan which is to take power. If you believe what they say I have some beachfront property here in western Colorado I want to sell you.

[Marcel]

I'm not taking sides here if the Iraque war is justified or not or if it was the right strategy to go there. A lot of people are more qualified to judge this than I am.

Don't get me wrong, as most Europeans I'm not really impressed by mr. Bush or the way he handles things. But one thing is sure: terrorism has to be stopped and the US decided to follow the strategy of first invading Afganistan and then Iraque. Most of the world, like my country decided to back up this strategy. As it's too late to stop now, we'll have to follow through. I'm sure that the US military, like my fellow countrymen in Afganistan, are doing the best they can in stopping terrorism and making the world safe and as such they need our support. It doesn't matter what the real intentions of mr. Bush were.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

hey Adler and cougar no offense intended as i stated merely my opinion...
But what was the reason america went into Iraq.
a lot say it was for oil the official reason was the supposed W.M.D that mysteriously dissapeared, the most dangerous thing they found in thoes "facilities" were cans of insect repellant.

We went there for the following reasons:

1. We were and are extremely concerned that Al Qaeda, among other fundamentalist Islamic groups who had demonstrated a willingness to attack the US directly, would get access to NBC/WMD.

2. Our intelligence, along with Brit, French, Russian intelligence believed Iraq had never completely abandoned their WMD programs - and repeatedly defied the UN wrt inspections

3. The intelligence was the same across US Presidents and the prior administration, Senators Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton, plus DoD Cohen, Sec State Albright all made public statements to that effect.

4. The CIA Director Tenant, who served in that capacity for both Clinton and Bush said the same thing

5. As an oild rich belligerent (Saddam/Iraq) who had already demonstrated his willingness to use banned chemical agents on his own people, there was no doubt that he could 'sponsor' other agents to serve his ends. He did not even have to supply weapons - just $$$$ to buy from disgruntled ex Soviet Regimental commanders who managed to draw down some 'inventory' in the Glasnost chaos - or perhaps from Cuba or PRNK or??

6. Iraq as a military power continued to pose a threat to not only Kuwait but also Saudi Arabia - representing 25% of world's oil production. We did not have boots on the ground to sufficiently deter Saddam from launching a quick strike and capturing the fields once again - he could not prevail but could destroy all that he captured... and maybe crazy enough to do so.

7. Do you want more?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

For those who would blame the US support of regimes in Central and South America that allegedly murdered many people, let me remind you of one fact. The US and UK supported with all their might the regime of Joseph Stalin during the Second World War. Stalin was one of the worst mass murderers in history. It was worth it to defeat Hitler and the Nazis and I doubt there is much legitimate argument about that. Saddam was an evil person and the terrorists the Coalition troops are fighting in Iraq are pure evil. Can that be so wrong? Besides that, if a secure and democratic Iraq results from the coalition efforts and that circumstance lends some stability to the oil rich middle east, can that be bad? Like it or not all modern economies run on oil and to ignore that is to stick one's head in the sand. For those that are taken in by the democrat party's protestations that Bush lied to get us into the war in Iraq, you don't know much about politics in the US. The democrats know very well that Bush did not lie. They had the same information he and Tony Blair had and most of them voted for the war. The only reason they claim he lied is that it plays well with their ignorant constituents and suits their political gameplan which is to take power. If you believe what they say I have some beachfront property here in western Colorado I want to sell you.

For those who haven't read Charlie Wilson's War - it's a must read with not only a very detailed chronology of the Afghanistan/USSR debacle and the CIA involvement but also very intriguing interviews with Soviet Commanders who firmly believe that w/o the bog down and subsequent defeat in Afghanistan, that the Soviet 'sponsors' in Central and South America would have prevailed against US... all the way through Mexico.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by drgondog

We went there for the following reasons:

1. We were and are extremely concerned that Al Qaeda, among other fundamentalist Islamic groups who had demonstrated a willingness to attack the US directly, would get access to NBC/WMD.

2. Our intelligence, along with Brit, French, Russian intelligence believed Iraq had never completely abandoned their WMD programs - and repeatedly defied the UN wrt inspections

3. The intelligence was the same across US Presidents and the prior administration, Senators Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton, plus DoD Cohen, Sec State Albright all made public statements to that effect.

4. The CIA Director Tenant, who served in that capacity for both Clinton and Bush said the same thing

5. As an oild rich belligerent (Saddam/Iraq) who had already demonstrated his willingness to use banned chemical agents on his own people, there was no doubt that he could 'sponsor' other agents to serve his ends. He did not even have to supply weapons - just $$$$ to buy from disgruntled ex Soviet Regimental commanders who managed to draw down some 'inventory' in the Glasnost chaos - or perhaps from Cuba or PRNK or??

6. Iraq as a military power continued to pose a threat to not only Kuwait but also Saudi Arabia - representing 25% of world's oil production. We did not have boots on the ground to sufficiently deter Saddam from launching a quick strike and capturing the fields once again - he could not prevail but could destroy all that he captured... and maybe crazy enough to do so.

7. Do you want more?

Good post.

It is real easy for people now to sit back and judge what has happened or what is happening.

[Njaco]

Nice going Drgn, much better list than mine. And can someone show me which country has a leader that is so beloved by his countrymen that anything he/she does is great? Bush has his faults like anyone but he is our president and I support what he does, and that is with the knowledge that sometimes things don't always work out as planned.

[Aussie1001]

Ok thanks Drgondog and Njaco point taken.

[pbfoot]

In most countries the war on terrorism is in Afghanistan . Afghanistan is a total other matter a NATO Ally was attacked by forces from Afghanistan on 9/11 and if any NATO member does not go to their aid in a combat manner they should be booted out of NATO. The only countries actually in combat in Afghanistan are Australia , Netherlands, US, UK New Zealand and Canada.
Where are these staunch allies such as Germany , Italy ,Spain , Belguim etc .

[renrich]

I don't believe that the US was attacked by Afghanistan on 9-11. The attack may have been planned by groups basing themselves in Afghanistan but many of the terrorists were actually Saudi nationals and they had been residing in the US. Nato was not set up to deal with attacks made by irregular terrorists with no recognised national government backing them. To me, that is one of the reasons that the Geneva Convention protocols should not apply.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Where are these staunch allies such as Germany , Italy ,Spain , Belguim etc .

I can not speak for the others but I can speak for Germany.

It is in the German consitution that the Bundeswehr will not be used for offensive operations unless it is in the defense of Germany as stated by parliament.

Why is this?

Basically because it is what the Allies after WW2 wanted when the Bundeswehr was formed in November of 1955.

Now having said that there are still 3,424 German Soldiers in Afghanistan, A helicoper company as well as 6 Tornado's.

28 German soldiers have also been killed in Afghanistan.

They are not allowed to conduct offensive operations but they are allowed to support NATO in combat opperations to help them out with things such as Medivac, etc....

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by renrich

I don't believe that the US was attacked by Afghanistan on 9-11. The attack may have been planned by groups basing themselves in Afghanistan but many of the terrorists were actually Saudi nationals and they had been residing in the US. Nato was not set up to deal with attacks made by irregular terrorists with no recognised national government backing them. To me, that is one of the reasons that the Geneva Convention protocols should not apply.

The Taliban was the gov't of Afghanistan on 9/11 they backed Al Qaeda and provided the infrastructure to the attackers

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I can not speak for the others but I can speak for Germany.

It is in the German consitution that the Bundeswehr will not be used for offensive operations unless it is in the defense of Germany as stated by parliament.

Why is this?

Basically because it is what the Allies after WW2 wanted when the Bundeswehr was formed in November of 1955.

Now having said that there are still 3,424 German Soldiers in Afghanistan, A helicoper company as well as 6 Tornado's.

28 German soldiers have also been killed in Afghanistan.

They are not allowed to conduct offensive operations but they are allowed to support NATO in combat opperations to help them out with things such as Medivac, etc....

I would love to see the restrictions imposed on both Germany and Japan by their constitutions regarding their armed forces removed. I am guessing that the Germans do not have issue with the restrictions imposed upon them, or else wouldn't there be a push to have them stricken?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by mkloby

I would love to see the restrictions imposed on both Germany and Japan by their constitutions regarding their armed forces removed. I am guessing that the Germans do not have issue with the restrictions imposed upon them, or else wouldn't there be a push to have them stricken?

You are right. The German people dont have a problem with that. They believe they have seen eneogh war. There is not a family in Germany that was not effected by the 2nd World War. Because of this it is still all to fresh in there minds. They feel that eneogh German blood has been spilled for a lifetime.

Between WW1 and WW2 (a time period of only 31 years) 7,589,897 German soldiers were killed and 2,236,000 German civilians killed for a total 9,825,897 Germans were killed. Germans population during that time period was only about 60 to 70 million. So as you can see about 15 percent of the population was killed in a short period of time. That is all still fresh in there minds and memories. As I said there is not a family today that was not effected by the war, especially WW2.

There is still a large population that remembers seeing Germany in ruins.

It is actually quite understandable why the German people do not want it changed.

[renrich]

While the taliban controlled much of Afghanistan prior to 2001, it had diplomatic recognition from only three small arab countries and could hardly be called an official or legitimate government or at least it was not recognised as such by most of the world.

[Marcel]

News of today: Dutch military commander sees "the mission in Afganistan as a combat mission rather than a "built up" mission as the politics wants us to believe" as if we didn't know . How can the dutch minister say that it's not a combat mission, quite some dutch soldiers have been killed already and they're fighting almost every day.