Replies to post #62824 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[hap0206]

eddy -- that was such a well reasoned post that I gave you a peoplemark

[seabass]

>>>The only allies missing are france and germany.<<<

That sounds good when you try to make Bush look good but it's nonsense........unfortunately. In Desert Storm, arab countries alone supplied 260,000 troops

http://www.cryan.com/war/AlliedForces.html


AND......the US paid 12% of the cost compared to 95% of the cost of the Iraq war. But only France and Germany are missing so it's really no big deal...


"But its allies won't stand in line to fork over money for war this time around. During the 1991 invasion of Iraq, Washington paid 12 per cent, or 7 billion dollars, of the total cost. Saudi Arabia footed 29 per cent of the bill, while Kuwait helped with 26 per cent, Germany with 16 per cent, Japan with 10 per cent and Great Britain with 7 per cent of the cost."

http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/e92bcade1641e6be49256cd40019c14d?OpenDocument

[JMKel]

My vote of course is my business not yours.

As far as Kerry is concerned your coments are taken out of context. Now that the US is in Iraq is is going to be difficult to pull out without leaving a power vacuum.
Kerry will not pull out.

As to Frances and Germanys reasons for not supporting the invasion of Iraq, you are stating that it was their financial interests that prevented them from following Bush. I believe that this is quite untrue. Both of them could have profited handsomely from backing Bush. France has a fairly large Moslem population as a legacy of its colonial days. A large proportion of the French did not support this war. I am less familiar with the German reasons. However, many people in this country agreed with Germany and France. So I think the reason you are giving is spurious. I have heard this before. It is just not true.

I only supported it relunctantly because Bush and Cheney lied and got Powell to lie at the UN. They basically pushed the "imminent threat" from WMD of chemical, biological and nuclear types. None were found becasue they had been destroyed by the UN inspectors and not replaced. They even stated that they could launch in 20 minutes. Using these deceitful tactics they were able to convince people of the need for "quick action". The senate went along as I did.

We all know that Bush lied to the UN through Powell. Powell knew he was presenting pictures that proved nothing about Iraq's weapons capability. they are continuing the lie even now. They linked Iraq to 9/11 and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They do this to deceive the wek minded people and keep them from knowing the true reasons for the invasion.


People who worked for Bush have confirmed that they were planing an invasion of Iraq beore 9/11. Bush cynically used 9/11 to move his invasion agenda forward.

The pattern of events and lies is very clear for all to see.
So if you want a government that lies to you by all means vote for Bush.

Also, Bush's pandering to the religious right is damaging this country both domestically and internationally. Pat Robertson advocates helping push the "end of days". Robertson is just another dangerous egomaniac ayatollah.

I have no doubt that Kerry will be more effective than Bush both domestically and internationally if he is elected.
The republicans are trying to characterize him as a coward, a fake hero, etc. But it is all BS. Kerry was a true war hero and Bush was not. Kerry later fought to end the war because the US had no vital interests in Vietnam and lots of people were being needlessly killed on both sides. His was forthright and some resent him for that. But he was himself. Kerry despite what Cheney and Zell are saying will do very well with respect to the military situation. Sure Kerry believes in maintaining good relations with our allies while the Bush administration insults them. Being effective in combating terrorism requires cooperation between nations. The Bush administration has been extremely dishonest.