|
Post by helens on Aug 30, 2013 20:38:25 GMT -5
Mel, that's what I posted. The link to the participants of the Iraq War starting in 2004. That's all there was. You don't need to hunt and peck, you just click the link and read the first paragraph. There was not 40. There was not 10. There was THREE, and Australia sent token troops.
The USA did all the dying.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Aug 30, 2013 20:49:47 GMT -5
Gulldanged Helen, if my horse was a bull headed as you, I'd trade him in. Read the freaking whole wiki post on the subject ( a coalition of about 40 countries are listed even if they only had a few troops) and quit you're bullshitting and admit you are fraking wrong. First off, the USA did not do all the dying. There were close to 300 coalition troops killed in combat situations from "25" coalition countries. Note, 25 countries not 3, and again three would not even be unilateral ya jughead ( that's what we call a horse that is unbelievably stubborn *L*) I give up, typing at you is like talking to a sack of rocks.....Mel
|
|
|
Post by helens on Aug 30, 2013 20:57:00 GMT -5
Fine. There were more nations that offered token support. They all have more people in the Peace Corps than they offered to help, and the help came from mad bullying from the US.
The 300 deaths from coalition troops are these: As of 24 February 2009, there were 318 deaths from the armed forces of other Coalition nations. 179 UK deaths and 139 deaths from other nations. Breakdown:[50][51][55] Australia — 2 Azerbaijan — 1 Bulgaria — 13 Czech Republic — 1 Denmark — 7 El Salvador — 5 Estonia — 2 Fiji — 1 Georgia — 5 Hungary — 1 Italy — 33 Kazakhstan — 1 Latvia — 3 Netherlands — 2 Poland — 30 Portugal — 1 Romania — 4 Slovakia — 4 South Korea — 1 Spain — 11 Thailand — 2 Ukraine — 18 United Kingdom — 179
For most of them, that's less deaths in a random small town hospital in a DAY. Or fewer than the tourists from a given nation dying in that foreign nation in a day. This is casualties of WAR.
It is a JOKE to bring that up as a coalition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2013 21:13:47 GMT -5
Mel, I think it's best we stay out of Syria. While they have nice tortoises I can get as many babies as I need in the USA. The lizards, mostly, ain't unique. Snakes? Who cares? No crocs, no turtles. Who cares?
The problems I have seen actual evidence of and not "we have proof" speculation are local and not global. I say, let 'em eat pork.
|
|
Thunder69
Cave Dweller
Thunder 2000-2015
Member since January 2009
Posts: 3,102
|
Post by Thunder69 on Aug 30, 2013 21:14:32 GMT -5
Gulf War
Coalition involvement[edit source | editbeta] Coalition troops from Egypt, Syria, Oman, France and Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm.Main article: Coalition of the Gulf War Coalition members included Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America.[111]
Germany and Japan provided financial assistance and donated military hardware, but didn't send direct military assistance. This later became known as checkbook diplomacy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iraq War
Coalition and Allied contingent involvement[edit source | editbeta]Main article: Multi-National Force – Iraq Dispositions of U.S. and allied units in the different occupation zones on 30 April 2004Members of the Coalition included Australia: 2,000 invasion, Poland: 200 invasion—2,500 peak, United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion, United States: 150,000 to 250,000 invasion. Other members of the coalition were Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, the Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.[159] At least 15 other countries participated covertly.[160]
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Aug 30, 2013 21:46:17 GMT -5
you forgot one Helen. www.globalresearch.ca/canadas-secretive-role-in-iraq/5328959While the more liberal end of the dominant media regurgitated the former PM’s claim, it’s completely false to say Canada did not participate in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. As Richard Sanders has detailed, dozens of Canadian troops were integrated in US units fighting in Iraq; U.S. warplanes en route to that country refueled in Newfoundland; With Canadian naval vessels leading maritime interdiction efforts off the coast of Iraq, Ottawa had legal opinion suggesting it was technically at war with that country; Canadian fighter pilots participated in “training” missions in Iraq; three different Canadian generals oversaw tens of thousands of international troops there; Canadian aid flowed to the country in support of US policy. As such, some have concluded that Canada was the fifth or sixth biggest contributor to the US-led war.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Aug 30, 2013 21:50:04 GMT -5
That's not Canada participating. Canada could not afford to behave like an enemy during the war, the aftermath would have been unpredictable to say the least. At the time, we were already having people howling to boycott Canada here for their lack of support.
Nevertheless, you bring this up about a WAR, we aren't going to WAR against Syria.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Aug 30, 2013 22:16:54 GMT -5
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Aug 30, 2013 22:22:23 GMT -5
Nevertheless, you bring this up about a WAR, we aren't going to WAR against Syria.
Launch a few at Russia and tell them your just playing and not at war. Your invading another countries borders with military weapons, equals war.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2013 22:50:55 GMT -5
Billy, I think I forgot a liberal tactic in my 101 thread.
Make up your own rules and/or definitions. I'll fix it.
I do not live in a world in which Canadian (you guys live in Canadia right?) soldiers participate in war is not Canada participating. Those soldiers are under order from their commanders and commander in chief, whomever that is in Canada. They were deployed with American units but their commander in chief. The fought admirably on behalf of Canada. But, wait, Canada did not participate in that war.
That is pretty orwellian to re-write RECENT history.
Make up your own rules and/or defintions. Off to make addition to the 101 thread.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Aug 30, 2013 23:09:58 GMT -5
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Aug 30, 2013 23:40:20 GMT -5
*LOL* OK one more before bed Helen. It was not a joke to say there was a coalition because anyone with any sense can see there was.. It was however, a bald faced lie for you to say there was unilateral action when there was obviously a coalition, and I think anyone who reads this will agree.
Actually I was unfair in my comment on deaths as aside from the US troops and coalition troops, a few hundred thousand Iraqis died too which in addition to the coalition troop deaths, makes the rest your comments about only Americans dying kind of BS too. Shame we all of us tend to remember only the deaths on our own side and you know, most soldiers on the opposing side aren't terrorists but rather just folks who fight for what they believe in, because they have to fight because they are ordered to do so, or because they don't like folks from other countries coming into their backyard and telling them what to do.
That's why I'm for staying out of wars unless we are attacked. If we have another civil war someday as we likely will, I'd say the folks on one side might be pretty pissed if some foreign folks came onto our soil and tried to help the opposite side of the conflict. Better to let nations wash their own dirty laundry......Mel
|
|
|
Post by helens on Aug 31, 2013 0:56:18 GMT -5
Mel, I agree about the Iraqi deaths. It is a shame that we ever have to fight a war. If people could just be happy with what they have, there wouldn't be any war. There's no doubt from any source that far far more Iraqi died than anyone else, and I appreciate and agree with your sentiment.
I also agree with you about staying out of wars. I am nearly libertarian in the anti-war position. This is different. Decades ago... 1968 actually... we decided that chemical and biological warfare was a bad idea. Probably because we saw the results of napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam. That the price to be paid for using those things had much longer lasting repercussions than whatever was considered 'honorable' about a war to begin with.
Over the 45 years since, many different US Presidents tried to put their own marks on halting the use of these weapons. Dead is dead, but chemical, biological and nuclear weapons could last generations... longer than the war that they were used in could be remembered maybe.
I AGREE with you about not stepping into other people's wars... and for the most part, we didn't here (far less than our 'usual' involvement in other wars). I think we're pretty sick of the price of war.
The problem here isn't about getting involved in war. It's about trashing the legacy of 45 years of US Presidents trying to stop the use of chemical, biological, nuclear weapons. It has NOTHING TO DO with Obama, except that his actions or lack of will possibly have lasting repercussions for the next President, and the President after that.
Consider this. You work for a nice boss. the boss is a great guy. However, he gets upset when people steal his pens. He is tired of buying more and more pens. So he says... next guy who steals a pen gets fired. People stop stealing pens for a long time. One day, some guy steals pens. If you were the boss, what would you do? What would happen if he doesn't fire the guy for stealing pens? MOST people won't steal pens anyway. But would some other people start stealing pens because the boss let that guy get away with it? Maybe pens is a silly example, but you get the drift. Obama didn't draw the line in the sand. It's been drawn and redrawn and redrawn by nearly every US President, of every party. Bush Sr enforced a no-fly zone in Northern Iraq... because the delivery of the chemical weapons on the Kurds was via plane. What should we do here?
And what is the big deal? It's not really our problem right? Well it is. Isreal is a very small nation, surrounded by enemies. They are military powerful... but if there is NO punishment for developing these types of weapons... imagine releasing a genetically modified version of the bubonic plague in a small nation. It would spread. This type of weapon might wipe out an entire nation in a few days. Look at Bird Flu and SARS and Mad Cow Disease. We controlled them... but we are now running on limited funds. CDC is no longer funded like they used to be. WHO will stop an outbreak, and with what when everyone is almost dead?
Doomsday scenerio of course, but geezus, with international travel, natural diseases can spread all over the world. Imagine a genetically modified disease. When you allow crossing the line over a not so big deal, the race will be on to create the last man standing disease. And ANYONE can make it, because this kind of thing only takes a gifted mind, not a lot of materials and equipment.
Can we afford to let a nation do this without any repercussions? Because while I'm sure there are LOTS of people with the idea, the reason why genetically modified diseases are not currently being developed as a weapon is because the fear is there that the entire world will come down on you for doing it. How do we NOT do something about this?
I am no geneticist. I do know something about science however, and so do you. You are a biologist. Tell me, if we can have virus DNA spliced in to grow insulin or interferon... how hard would it be to have the same virus rapidly replicate Ebola? What about man-eating flesh disease that no antibiotic can stop today short of amputation? Is it POSSIBLE to do this today? You KNOW it is. Do we allow one nation to do this, and give other nations the idea that no one will stop them either?
I earlier made the analogy about Hitler and taking Czechoslovakia. Had Hitler been stopped there, because the world came together and STOPPED him, would we have needed D-Day? How many people died at D-Day?
The longer you let something TERRIBLE continue, or ignore a crime when it happens, what message do you send? If all we can manage are a few missiles, is it not better than letting them get away scott free, and giving EVERYONE the idea that they will only be safe if they have a worse threat to wield?
This isn't about killing people, it's about forcing the world to realize that some of us do NOT want an acceleration. That doing something potentially heineous will be punished. And while I will ABSOLUTELY agree that it's not our job to police the world... I see this as future self-preservation. What kind of world will we live in when every nation wants to have a BETTER weapon than anyone, and they don't need a plane to deliver it, just 1 infected agent?
We aren't punishing Syria. We are telling the world that we will not let them develop something that can kill us all without a fight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2013 9:21:55 GMT -5
if ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
stolen pens?
ebola virus spliced into another virus?
Bird Flu SARS and mad cows?
forcing our views on the world is OK?
I don't think that is a liberal tactic.
Perhaps it's a personality disorder.
Nothing, it's a local issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2013 9:23:52 GMT -5
It pleases me to observe that our commander in chief seems to lack sufficient scrotal volume to actually act in this arena.
Doing nothing looks really bad to some. Many perhaps. But it's the correct response. It's a local issue.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Aug 31, 2013 10:36:53 GMT -5
Man, don't know if it's true or not but there's a You tube video going around now about a credible BBC/UP reporter's story that the al kaida affiliated rebels are admitting they received chemical weapons from the Saudi's, with no training, and accidentally set them off causing the mass deaths.Interesting if true, considering all the stuff Kerry has been shoveling about government intelligence showing it was the Syrian government that used the weapons. Hope this is investigated thoroughly before we take action. Anyone else heard any fact check stuff on this story?.....Mel
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Aug 31, 2013 11:23:34 GMT -5
I don't think that is a liberal tactic. Perhaps it's a personality disorder. There's a difference?
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Aug 31, 2013 11:28:46 GMT -5
Man, don't know if it's true or not but there's a You tube video going around now about a credible BBC/UP reporter's story that the al kaida affiliated rebels are admitting they received chemical weapons from the Saudi's, with no training, and accidentally set them off causing the mass deaths.Interesting if true, considering all the stuff Kerry has been shoveling about government intelligence showing it was the Syrian government that used the weapons. Hope this is investigated thoroughly before we take action. Anyone else heard any fact check stuff on this story?.....Mel Very likely scenario, only I doubt it was "accidental". I have been hearing that the symptoms of the victims did not match the types of chemical weapons in the Syrian arsenal. Lee
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Aug 31, 2013 12:00:15 GMT -5
Interesting all right. Just watched the UN press conference and the question came up there. Now I wonder, if the Al Quida folks used chemical weapons, is Obama gonna tomahawk the rebels instead of the government of Syria?. After all, he promised he'd punish the folks who used the illegal weapons . Will he bomb the folks he supports if they prove to be the bad guys?...Mel
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Aug 31, 2013 12:15:50 GMT -5
He won't bomb the rebels. Might injure some of his kinfolk.
If he is smart, which he is not. He would let them fight it out and deal with the after math. Iran has already signed up alot of kamikaze jet pilots to take out US ships in the area. And then there is Russia to deal with to.
If Barry wants to fundamentally change the US he is going down the right path. Hope and change really means, change Syria and hope Russia does not send a few of their own missiles back!!!!.
|
|