The International Coalition in Iraq

Kerry says Franco-German troops unlikely

Quote:

---

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he is elected president.

Asked about that statement later, Mr. Kerry said, "When I was referring to that, I was really talking about Germany and France and some of the countries that had been most restrained."
"Other countries are obviously more willing to accept responsibilities," he added, as he took questions from reporters in a school yard in Tipton, Iowa.

...

Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, the leader of one of the countries already contributing troops, sharply criticized Mr. Kerry for his frequent comments that no country besides the United States and Britain is contributing troops in a substantial way.
"It is sad that a senator with 20 years of experience underestimates Polish sacrifice, this is sad," Mr. Kwasniewski said in an interview with Poland's TVN television, saying it was "immoral" to ignore the contributions of Poland, Ukraine, Bulgaria and others.

---

Yay. The Polish are helping. Not to sound ungrateful, but really... is that as big a deal as they are making it? I remember doing reports on armor for various countries in the 20th century. Someone did a report on Poland. I almost pissed myself laughing when we were told about "Polish armored battle trains."

America and England are the heavy contributors on this.. of course they'll get the credit.

j/r

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolen
Yay. The Polish are helping. Not to sound ungrateful, but really... is that as big a deal as they are making it?

---

It sure is.

Let's be honest. Compared to the US Military, every other national military pales by comparison.

The accusation made by the left is that there is no international support, which is patently false. Denegrating the contributions of countries like Poland is not the way to improve relations with other nations.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle

Denegrating the contributions of countries like Poland is not the way to improve relations with other nations.

---

I agree. Sacrifice should not be determined by WHAT you provide. Sacrifice to me is determined by what you provide as compared to what you are ABLE to provide. We should embrace all assistance, not treat other contributing countries as simple tag-a-longs who do not count.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyrosama
I agree. Sacrifice should not be determined by WHAT you provide. Sacrifice to me is determined by what you provide as compared to what you are ABLE to provide. We should embrace all assistance, not treat other contributing countries as simple tag-a-longs who do not count.

---

You mean, like...

"From each according to ability, and to each according to need"

Hmm... :D

So if Kerry concedes he won't be able to get French and German help, who does he expect to bring aboard to share the burden? Russia, India, and China are the only other nations I can think of that has the resources to provide any amount of sizable military assistance. China is out of the question, and I would imagine India would be extremely reluctant, due to their own internal/external military problems. Which leaves one more potential country, which would hardly provide the great relief that Kerry implies.

The polish special forces are fucking amazing, yeah Poland is making a big contribution based on their ability by sending in troops.

I think the point to be taken is that France and Germany really dont have much more to offer the coallition than Poland does in terms of military.

Every major "coallition" or UN "action" involves a gross majority of American troops on the ground. We have the best trained, best equiped, most professional army in the world.

The world and the left conviently forget about that when it's in their best interest to slam the administration or the United States.

Just an intersting tidbit to color the discussion. In the debate today Kerry said that if Missouri was it's own nation it would be the third largest troop contributor to the Iraq war.

A similarly interesting point:

1 US carrier group is the second most powerful military force... after the United States.

From a slightly different perspective, General Electric would be one of the top 10 most powerful economies in the world if it was its own country.

The United States is quite frankly in a whole separate class when you compare it to other countries- especially when it comes to economics or military power.

We are the only military that is a global threat that can strike anywhere anytime in less than 24 hours. Given our martial dominance, if the world decided to have a coaltion to topple us, they would be able to do it. We'd put up an awesome fight, but we'd lose.

Any chess player can tell you that you can win a game with just pawns if you play them right. So, let's say that the US contribute 100,000 troops. Poland gives up 10,000. Israel gives up 15,000. Australia: 17,000. South Korea: 12,000. The Phillipines: 9,000. Each one is easily dwarfed by the United States, but together, 63,000 is a huge fuckin chunk.

Many countries cannot provide the manpower we can, but that in no way makes them insignificant. I am personally grateful for every ally we have, large or small. The small add up. And we won't even go into the effect that one man can have. That one man just might be Polish.

So yes, Jolen, Kerry put his foot in his mouth. One more reason I'm voting for Bush. If that's his idea of foreign policy, he ain't impressing me in any way.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lebeau
We are the only military that is a global threat that can strike anywhere anytime in less than 24 hours. Given our martial dominance, if the world decided to have a coaltion to topple us, they would be able to do it. We'd put up an awesome fight, but we'd lose.

---

I know this is a tangent, but I don't think the whole world could accomplish this.

Remember, we'd be defending and the defender has a tremendous advantage.

Our Navy is so far superior to every other navy in the world I doubt anyone could even reach us.

I agree we couldn't conquer the world, but I don't think the world could conquer us either.

Obviously I am assuming no use of nuclear weapons which would destroy everything.

Yeah, if the world really tried to come after us they would be crushed and totally dominated. (Nukes aside)

This doesn't mean that we could go out and roll over the world, but our army/navy/air force is so rapid response that whoever (whole world even) decided to invade us would eventually be run over.. And it would give the gang bangers someone to shoot, other than each other.

This discussion is a bit like my dad is stronger than your dad... but kind of fun.

I believe that you are right that the world together could not invade the US... but if there were a war lasting 10-20 years I guess the scales over time would tip enough to make it possible. Winning a war involves lots of aspects. I am sure that the rest of the world would have so much more resources to put into creating whatever was needed where the US would run low on a few resources. Maybe the right inventions would take more than 20 years but the world wars have shown how fast inventions can be made when you really really really want them to.

-Peter