US's best allies. - Page 5




View Poll Results :Which country is USA's best ally nowadays?
United Kingdom 22 66.67%
Israel 6 18.18%
Italy 1 3.03%
Poland 0 0%
Australia 1 3.03%
Canada 2 6.06%
Turkey 0 0%
Japan 0 0%
North Korea ( lol...) 1 3.03%
Others 0 0%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
Boots
 
June 26th, 2004  
1217
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck
Because we put the ARRRRR! in Army! (and Arrr Force )
Rednecks=pirates?
July 2nd, 2004  
Damien435
 
 
I had to vote for the UK, Israel lost because they have almost no way of supporting us in a war, the UK has proven that they can at the very least provide logistics support and some combat troops. That and the UK has never purposely attacked a USN ship when they were supposedly allied to us, I was referring to the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. But does the UK support our war in Iraq or does the British Government? Seems to me like Blair is taking a lot of heat for Iraq, I don't know that the UK supports us, just their government.
July 2nd, 2004  
Italian Guy
 
 
Thats true, I mean that Israel couldnt provide much help, of course it couldnt. But hey - the Israelis are the most supportive people on earth, I mean of the States.
--
Boots
July 2nd, 2004  
England Expects (RAF Cdt)
 
 
Damien, the British public are hugely divided over the issue of Iraq, the support and anti-war feeling is however difficult to gauge because of a number government blunders. A respected weapon scientist recently committed suicide after telling a BBC News correspondent that information in the government's pre-war dossier on Iraq had been 'fiddled'. The Scientist's name was accidently leaked to the government and a few days later his body was found beside a river. He had told the BBC that the government's information relating to why Britain should join America had been changed to make a more substantial case for war. In the dossier, it was said that Saddam could launch WMDs within 45 minutes, it turns out, after the end of the war, that field artillery could be deployed in 45 minutes and not WMDs. It is important to remember that just as the war began, around 64% were in favour of the war. After the scandal surrounding the government's Iraq dossier and the suicide of the scientist, the percentage of people supporting the war has dropped to somewhere in the 30's. It is therefore an almost impossible task to investigate who was deadly against the war from those who feel betrayed by the government because of the lies fed to them by 'Tonies' Cronies'.
To give you a short answer however, it is probably best to look at the support for the war before the truth behind the Iraq dossier came out, that figure is set at about 60% in favour of the war.
July 2nd, 2004  
Damien435
 
 
Bush lied to us too, do I care, no, I don't care if we never find the WMD's, which do exist in small amounts buried in the sand of the Iraqi desert, I felt we should go into Iraq because Saddam needed to be put on trial for what he did to the Kurds, hundreds of thousands killed, more were injured and will never be able to live a normal life again, that alone is enough reason for the US to go into Iraq. And I am sick of these damned hippies saying that it is all about oil, no, it isn't, our gas prices shot up when the war started, they went up a couple of months ago, and are just now going down because SAUDI ARABIA, not Iraq started increasing their output of oil.
July 2nd, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by England Expects (RAF Cdt)
Damien, the British public are hugely divided over the issue of Iraq, the support and anti-war feeling is however difficult to gauge because of a number government blunders. A respected weapon scientist recently committed suicide after telling a BBC News correspondent that information in the government's pre-war dossier on Iraq had been 'fiddled'. The Scientist's name was accidently leaked to the government and a few days later his body was found beside a river. He had told the BBC that the government's information relating to why Britain should join America had been changed to make a more substantial case for war. In the dossier, it was said that Saddam could launch WMDs within 45 minutes, it turns out, after the end of the war, that field artillery could be deployed in 45 minutes and not WMDs. It is important to remember that just as the war began, around 64% were in favour of the war. After the scandal surrounding the government's Iraq dossier and the suicide of the scientist, the percentage of people supporting the war has dropped to somewhere in the 30's. It is therefore an almost impossible task to investigate who was deadly against the war from those who feel betrayed by the government because of the lies fed to them by 'Tonies' Cronies'.
To give you a short answer however, it is probably best to look at the support for the war before the truth behind the Iraq dossier came out, that figure is set at about 60% in favour of the war.

well that sure sounds bad...but lets look at one elemental fact.

Take the passage about the WMDs could be launched in 45 minutes. now it turns out that the artillary could set up in 45 minutes. Why would this be a problem? You see, most of Saddam's war gases were either rocket (such as the scud) or artillary delivered items. His air forces having been dwindled to nothing, these were the only options left to him. And on the whole, most chemical weapons they have been finding are artillary delivered devices.

There has to be more to this revelation than whats appearing here. Can you provide a news link, like the BBC, that might be able to explain the furor over the report?

July 2nd, 2004  
1217
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
And I am sick of these damned hippies saying that it is all about oil, no, it isn't, our gas prices shot up when the war started, they went up a couple of months ago, and are just now going down because SAUDI ARABIA, not Iraq started increasing their output of oil.
You think that if the war in Iraq would be about the oil, the goal would be that the ordinary US citizens would benefit from it? Now I don't want to insult you, but that sounds a bit naive to me. Bush had (has) some friends at Enron, remember? And there's more companies out there who could make some money off this Iraq thing. I'm not saying that this war is about oil, but if it is, the oil prices in the US won't go down because of it. More likely they'll go up...
July 2nd, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
Since the majority of the United States' oil comes from Canada at the moment .... hmm, regime change!
July 3rd, 2004  
Damien435
 
 
No, I am not saying the ordinary US citizen would benefit from it, I am saying that the hippies and environmentalist said that was what the war was over, that's right, those environmentalist with the safe the earth bumper stickers on their 1986 full size van that gets 12 miles to the gallon and they travel all over the county talking about the evils of SUV's and Bush.

It is like people can't accept the fact that maybe we are in Iraq because it is the right thing to do, because that doesn't really benefit us so why would we do that? I am joining the Army, I keep getting told that I chose a good time to join because hopefully all this non-sense in Iraq would be over. I tell them I hope I get to go to Iraq, so that way in 30 years I can say "I was there, I helped, I made a difference there," not "yeah, I joined right after the war so I could get in and get out without facing much combat, wasn't that a good idea?"
July 6th, 2004  
1217
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
No, I am not saying the ordinary US citizen would benefit from it, I am saying that the hippies and environmentalist said that was what the war was over, that's right, those environmentalist with the safe the earth bumper stickers on their 1986 full size van that gets 12 miles to the gallon and they travel all over the county talking about the evils of SUV's and Bush.
You said: "And I am sick of these ****** hippies saying that it is all about oil, no, it isn't, our gas prices shot up when the war started, they went up a couple of months ago, and are just now going down because SAUDI ARABIA, not Iraq started increasing their output of oil." You argue that it's not about oil because the oil price went up. I'm telling you that that doesn't proof that the war wasn't about oil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
It is like people can't accept the fact that maybe we are in Iraq because it is the right thing to do, because that doesn't really benefit us so why would we do that?
It is like people can't accept the fact that maybe we aren't in Iraq because it is the right thing to do, but for other reasons. I'm not saying that we're in Iraq for the wrong reasons, because I don't know. But neither do you. I'm just trying to look at it from both points of view.