Should US "Allies" Be Attacked?

[August Borms]

ther germans should send colonists, not warplanes to afghanistan.

and the entire central asia

it's their ancient magical homeland

[Wiglaf]

Wiglaf, can you please find a transcript or at least a coherent review of Bush's words to the United Nations? Or could you at least quote him, beyond soundbytes?

Use a search engine or something.

OK, so let's say Australia, Canada, the UK, Germany, and France all send planes and begin bombing.

Who's coordinating the targets? That's a logistical nightmare!

No, it's devastating more than anything else. Britain and Canada can take Iraq while the US and the Aussies bring down Syria. If you honestly think it would cause problems to form and use an alliance, well, you're wrong.

I'm not saying the Brit/Canada combo would be effective or anything, but it'd be much more useful than what they're doing now.

The reason that won't happen is because Blair is concerned only about the politics of this war. The people don't want to see british bombs, they won't see british bombs. Oh, but if it's their country attacked, to hell with holding back and 'peacekeeping'. No questions asked. That makes it painfully obvious that those commies deep down don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. If that's the case, which it is, they do not deserve to be our allies. Instead, they should be militarily treated as a threat and an enemy.

That's a point YOU left wingers have failed to answer.

Yeah, I'm sure the U.S. war chiefs are trying desperately to find video of our troops in danger so that they can undermine the public support of the war.

huh? the american government has provided proof to the people that special ops troops are in the region without putting anything in danger. blair hasn't done anything like that - instead, he just says "we're in there, doing...something." not proof. NOT AT ALL.

[Stefu]

Wiglaf, everyone's concentrating on insulting you because, based on your continual unwillingness to accept the fact that Britain has offered 6,000 troops and America has refused to use them, it's obviously about as easy to convince you that you are wrong as it is to convince Osama Bin Laden that Christianity is the way to go.

[Wiglaf]

Link? Why hasn't Britain complained, or shown more eagerness to be involved in a war that Blair said directly involved them?

[Ted Striker]

Use a search engine or something.

BUS-TED! So for all we know you're making it up. YOU supplied the evidence, so the burden of proof is on YOU.

Until you supply us with what he said that backs up your argument, it means absolutely NOTHING.

Oh wait, it already does mean NOTHING.

[H Tower]

wiggy, the burden of proving yourself correctly is onYOU
why should we bother to prove your points? we're only proving our points and refuting yours.

[rev]

I honestly don't even recall Bush having addressed the UN anytime lately.

[H Tower]

damn. striker beat me too it. good catch Ted

[Ted Striker]

thanks dog. good catch as well.

Syrup,

Well, I think in your goofball scenario, it would be silly to divide up forces that way. God bless the Brits and Canada, but asking them to do it by themselves is too much of a burden to ask. If that scenario really were to happen, it would make much more sence to take out Iraq first and then Syria. I believe the Brits and French were on the US right flank last go in Iraq. Not sure where the Canadians were...

The Powell Doctrine states to bring much more force than is necessary to bring about a victory. Splitting them up the way you are advocating means more casualties and more time on the ground for all parties involved.

Anyway, now supply us with the evidence and ANSWER STEFU'S QUESTION.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by rev
I honestly don't even recall Bush having addressed the UN anytime lately.

I believe it was what, 2 or 3 weeks ago last time? But I don't recall Bush saying anything like,

"Dammit you allies suck! Why aren't you bombing the Taliban more!?! Wiglaf said so!!!"

[Wiglaf]

Please address this, I've only posted it ten times.

The reason that won't happen is because Blair is concerned only about the politics of this war. The people don't want to see british bombs, they won't see british bombs. Oh, but if it's their country attacked, to hell with holding back and 'peacekeeping'. No questions asked. That makes it painfully obvious that those commies deep down don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. If that's the case, which it is, they do not deserve to be our allies. Instead, they should be militarily treated as a threat and an enemy.

That's a point YOU left wingers have failed to answer.

That also happens to be the answer to Stefu's question. Blair wouldn't send the troops in, the politics in the region don't allow for it.

Anyhoo, here's the speech you liberals never said happened. Evidently I'm the only one here able to bring up a search engine.

----
"For every regime that sponsors terror, there is a price to be paid, and it will be paid. The allies of terror are equally guilty of murder and equally accountable to justice. The Taliban are now learning this lesson. That regime and the terrorists who support it are now virtually indistinguishable. "

"In this war of terror, each of us must answer for what we have done or what we have left undone. After tragedy, there is a time for sympathy and condolence. And my country has been very grateful for both. The memorials and vigils around the world will not be forgotten, but the time for sympathy has now passed. The time for action has now arrived."

"We're asking for a comprehensive commitment to this fight. We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. "

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/10/ret...ipt/index.html (only because the fox site didn't load, btw)
----

Since you wanted that and you got it, I also now demand a response to my earlier posts in full.

[H Tower]

i don't see anything in thaat speech complaining that the allies aren't doing there part.

[Ted Striker]

1) Define for me exactly what "comprehensive committment" means.

Trick question, YOU CAN'T. It's gray language. Might mean one thing to one person and something completely different to another.

2) Tell me where in that speech Bush names of SPECIFIC countries and asks them for SPECIFIC MILITARY ACTIONS.

NOWHERE IN THE SPEECH WAS THERE *ANYTHING* SPECIFIC REGARDING MILITARY ACTION.

3) You are SERIOUSLY on crack if you think we should be treating Britain as a THREAT or an ENEMY. Have you gone off your rocker? Seriously? That's the most ABSURD damn thing I have ever heard. You've really lost it. They are our best friend, and the most powerful one at that, it's not only the RIGHT thing to do, but it's also the PRACTICAL thing to do to see them through as an ally.

[Immortal Wombat]

*sigh*

Ok.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
The reason that won't happen is because Blair is concerned only about the politics of this war.

Whereas Bush doesn't give a damn about the politics, and will get himself into political sh!t? I think not. This war is intensly political, and Blair's job of getting the rest of the Muslim world to go along with you bombing one of the world's poorest nations to hell has been bloody hard work, whilst Bush sits on his ass eating donuts.

The people don't want to see british bombs, they won't see british bombs. Oh, but if it's their country attacked, to hell with holding back and 'peacekeeping'. No questions asked.

Seeing British bombs isn't a problem. And we jumped in just as fast as if our country had been attacked. (no waiting for the war to drag on for 3 years first)
Peacekeeping, for people who are more concerened with the big explosions that the political ramifications is what happens after the gun-toting hardmen have left, and what remains of a country is in dire need of food, and other basic amenities, and doesn't need in-fighting between a million-and-one warlords. In a situation like Afghanistan, peacekeeping is the hard job, not sitting in B-52's and dropping bombs.

That makes it painfully obvious that those commies deep down don't give a damn about anyone but themselves.

And declaring war on us wouldn't make that statement outrageously hypocritical how?

If that's the case, which it is, they do not deserve to be our allies. Instead, they should be militarily treated as a threat and an enemy.

That's a point YOU left wingers have failed to answer.

If you declare war on even just the UK with that kind of reasoning, you will lose the support of the world, YOU will be the rogue state, and as such, after an extensive WW3, USA will be in tatters, and the rest of the world can live happy in the knowledge that you won't be spouting BS for the next few years, till the lessons are forgotten again.

[H Tower]

The reason that won't happen is because Blair is concerned only about the politics of this war. The people don't want to see british bombs, they won't see british bombs. Oh, but if it's their country attacked, to hell with holding back and 'peacekeeping'. No questions asked. That makes it painfully obvious that those commies deep down don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. If that's the case, which it is, they do not deserve to be our allies. Instead, they should be militarily treated as a threat and an enemy.

That's a point YOU left wingers have failed to answer.

so what if they don't want to help as much? so they only provide moral or token military support? it doesn't justify US dropping bombs on them.