Should Poland continue to support Bush's war on terror?

Well maybe you will be a little less dismisive of people in future?

Why buy these antiques,crikey,they were made in the 1970s,nice looking plane and all that but........

Wow! Unbelievable!
How revealing! Is that something you just found out? :)

I don't know what you mean by "real force" but If you look at the map of Europe from late 16th, early 17th century hen It was quite large country.



What kind of "empire" (except short time of 3rd Reich) Germany had ? The rest were simply stealing land of primitive tribes and Poland wouldn't have done that anyway because It wasn't a naval country. In the last centuries Russians grew much because they were exploring huge parts (usually empty) of Asia and western European countries were conguering "new world". Poland located between them couldn't do that just like Austria couldn't do that although before WW1 that was a very important country.



BS. Dude, you've got issues.



Go learn something about military equipment.

That's not the fvcking point :)

If Gulliani would won, I don't reject such possibility.



I agree but still I don't see any reasons to be stuck in Asia. We are there already too long.

I think a country becomes such a thing by doing and not necessarily by having been.

You mean Afghanistan ? This is a NATO mission and It wouldn't look good If we didn't have any serious forces there. In case of Iraq I would reduce the number of soldiers to really symbolic number but would still keep them even a few years more. We've had soldiers in Bosnia since over 10 years and in some places even longer.

If that's the definition, that poland definately was this "real force".

The Polish state is over 1,000 years old and was the richest and most powerful state in Europe in the sixteenth century.

source URL

In the mid-1500s, united Poland was the largest state in Europe and perhaps the continent's most powerful nation. (Encyclopedia Britannica)

................

yeah i don't see it either now. + that is kind of "russian" oil anyway. ;)


yeah dude... we saved all your asses way back then from islam. look into it. you should thanks us. :D :D

We should rather advocate to end this mission, probably many would back us. We have sent recently large group of troops and no other country did the same. What is more our troops went to supposed the most dangerous regions. I simply don't believe for any kind profit from this conflict. This is moronic cause to defend Afghani democracy that never existed and this is very unlikely that we will find Bin Laden.



I suppose that you count on some gratitude from the US? I'm not... I would withdrawn from Bosnia as well. Those who created this ridiculous country should provide security over there if this is still necessary. How to steal Kosovo from Serbia, they seems to know while Srbska Republika must be stuck in Bosnia.

actually for a change it is their own style democracy.. it's very clannish.. and we're (the west) not pushing anything on them..

i don't think we're lookinig for OBL anymore and we may never have..


as to iraq, it was never US' business to get involved there in ther first place.. if they wanted saddam gone, i am sure they could have taken care of things.. just look at middle eastern history and you'll see that it's been done time and again over there.

The next day western troops pull out will be the end of any kind of democracy in this country. Even right now local clans care little about central goverment.

I doubt It. This is a test for the whole NATO. If ISAF fails It will practically means the end of NATO.



Because every other bigger member of NATO has had there large numbers of soldiers since years. Our excuse was involvement in Iraq.



South-weste (where Canadians and British are - and Americans of course) is the worst. Ours is "medium".



Not really. We should demand something BEFORE we sent the there but the cost of keeping there let's say 250 soldiers would be minimal and then just in case (If let's say in some time things will finally get better in Iraq) we could say that It's also thanks to us because we were there from the beggining to the end, we treat are obligations seriously and other crap - maybe not much but the costs would be samll. I see much more sense in that than in sending soldiers to Africa...

There's truth in there. Don't forget Rumsfeld and his close contacts with Saddam in the 80's.

I think most of Americans have noticed that this way of fighting agains "Terror" was horrible mistake ... I think that most of their alies together with them think how to end this S*** ... as to me when I saw the figures with money USA have spended in Iraq I think they could ensure safety for USA citizens spending 10% of money.

Seems everyone who has never been to Iraq (or maybe only visited the "green zone" which might as well be London...well not *quite*) seems to know all there is about it and how the war is supposedly going, and all of the reasons everyone supposedly does these things. To these experts, I say, why are you hoarding this knowledge from the governments of the world! PLEASE!! speak out, so we can have world peace, NOW!

Sorry. Just a few posts here surprise me a bit.
Here are a few comments I'll add.

1. YES America did support Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. At the time, Iran was a larger threat to the U.S. and her interests than was Iraq. While it is true that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my FRIEND, keeping him on his feet for awhile ties up TWO of my enemies for a time....

2. America's government is a quirky thing. Everyone enjoys blaming Bush for everything going "bad". First of all...they are only as "bad" as CNN (with political interest in the war failing) ABC (with political and economic interest in the war failing) CBS (with Political and economic interest in the war failing) BBC (with Political...well, you know) want them to seem. Bad news =$$$$ (or Euro, GBP, Zl, pick your denomination) to the networks, who are not regulated at all....secondly, thanks largely in part to Republicans not fulfilling promises to their constituents, the newly elected congress is composed with a majority Democrat (read:opposition party to Bush) who then gladly shoot down anything the other side did.

3. Money offered or deals offered to other nations....have to go through Congress. Currently they are being extremely petty, loudly proclaiming they hate Bush, but not really offering any solutions of their own-and in the mean time, they aren't going to let a cent go to Poland or anywhere else (personal opinion anyway) if Bush wants it to go there. They won't even approve a budget to pay US (troops) because they want to add things to it that have nothing to do with a budget. Mind you, we (Sailors, Soldiers, Marines, etc) still have to do our jobs, pay or no. Point is, wouldn't surprise me if they would refuse to uphold bargains made by the former administration, just to somehow embarrass the President. As if it mattered. They are behaving like children.

4. War is fought by military and naval forces (people like myself, or perhaps, your neighbor) on behalf of civilians, who do not have to fight. Do some *real* research before deciding what is really happening and what is simply being "reported". Michael Moore makes a neat video montage and does good editing. Even he himself does not call his work "documentary" because it is political propaganda at its finest...a different topic altogether....

5. People sputtering through their own hate-filled spittle that "Americans only want OIL!!!" should look in a mirror. What did you fill your gas tank with the last time? What got burned to create the electricity in your home? Own anything made of plastic? Have tires(tyres if you are British) on your vehicle? those haven't been made from natural rubber for years....have polyester/nylon/other synthetic fabrics in anything you use/wear?

6. People speak of countries like USA wanting to "take" oil from (pick Middle-Eastern nation of your choice). I ask, who paid the money to find the oil? USA. Some British. Who paid for, researched, and built all the wells? Mostly, private companies, from USA. Who then built the refineries, to turn the oil into all sorts of other goodies, such as gasoline (petrol) for your vehicle, plastic, etc etc? again, USA and GB. Primarily this was done by private companies, paid for with the money risked by anyone who risked their incomes to buy stock in these companies-and the work done mostly by American workers (and perhaps British).
Pres. Carter makes some stupid stupid moves not beneficial to America (or anyone else for that matter) with the result being, a fanatic Muslim revolutionary has taken over Iran, taken Americans hostage, and declared himself the supreme Ayatollah (do I have this correct?). Instantly he nationalizes all the industry (as do other OPEC nations) essentially taking the privately owned oil producing facilities from their owners, and declaring it property of the state. Instantly, there was a worldwide recession, and an enormous fuel shortage. American companies which had risked everything-simply lost. The majority of the countries producing oil in the middle east-did not pay a cent to find, drill, produce, refine, or arrange shipping-of the product, and now can charge the world as they please.
Sounds a lot like if you were to build a house in America, or perhaps start a shop here, and just as soon as you spent your lifesavings in the shop-the government takes it, and declares you an "Infidel Polish" and makes you pay for your own product.

D#$@ straight Oil is worth war. I don't know about you, but my Grandmother is not going to freeze to death because some guy in Iran, or Venezuela, or Moscow-decides he wants to "stick it to America" and make us pay so much that my grandmother can not afford to heat her house in the winter....

As to whether Iraq supported terror, I believe so. That wasn't the reason for invading. Fact is Saddam was all too happy having his neighbors believing he had WMD's (and based on things I saw over there, I think he *did* have them, again, another discussion) and even if he did not, the power gained by one's neighbors thinking he did have them seemed worth the risk that America would call his bluff. For over a decade he called our bluffs, saying, maybe I have em, what are you going to do?. Clinton did nothing. Bush Sr. stopped short of Baghdad, based perhaps on pity and the uproar over the "Highway of Death" where Iraqi vehicles were slaughtered as the Iraq army fled Kuwait.....so perhaps he thought, why would Bush Jr. be any different? He thought wrong.
rant concluded....
:D

You must be related to Bush or at the very least you are in his payroll.

well, this is very true

Brilliant. With this logic, you must be dating Michael Moore, right?
Look it up. Bad news from Iraq (OR ANYWHERE)=money. Their profit reporting is public, I don't make this stuff up.
Unfortunately I'm also not going to make you a cute little movie where I edit in only parts that seem to support my side-to show it to you. Eventually everyone has to play "grown up" and read between the lines (to find the TRUTH) and make our own decisions. Because we are human, our decisions can't always be RIGHT, but we can TRY.
Congrats on your marriage Mrs. Moore....
;)

Are you talking about 900 Polish troopers in Iraq? :-)
Polish soldiers in Iraq are more like a moral support for our policy. It's not like we couldn't do what we're doing without them. Sorry guys, I had to mention it. At the same time I'm not trying to defend Bush's politics but if I have to choose between America and the Americans and the rest of the world, my choice is obvious, my heart beats for my people and my country.

of course, i hear that every day, and I understand that, but you cannot say that it's not important that Poland supports you guys, because you would still make it on your own....

I didn't say it's unimportant. All I tried to express was that we are able to deal with Iraq without anyone's help (as far as military). We need you guys as a moral back up which is also very important.
Peace sister :-)

Wow! Denis Miller would be so proud of you on that one! :) *applauds loudly to in depth rant*

But seriously...we do need to wean ourselves off oil. (I don't want your grandma to freeze either). Other fuel sources could change the economic landscape in ways we can only imagine......and shift the balance of power between the west and the middle east. Of course they will still hate us, because according to extremist Islamic views, we are all evil and violate every tenet of their code.

And the war on terror could be fed on that idea alone (if that is their real beef with the west...but I'd be willing to bet there is more to it).

- Absolutely not. Poland should keep as far from US politics as possible.

The expression 'Bush's war on terror' appears meaningless; e.g. the expresson 'Bush's terrorist war' seems to make more sense.

It looks like for some Poles like you puzzler, Poland is still a part of "Uklad Warszawski". I may not agree 100% with Bush but I still hate GD communists like you "puzzler".

Iran could be threat to US interests in this region.



Indeed, below Zbigniew Brzezinski and Osama Bin Laden

This wont stop an attack by a suicide bomber on a packed bus or train! All it does is make Poland a target for Russia.

Quoting Isthatu:
Quoting: z_darius
Poland spent on purchaes of US arms then it received from the US. Aren't you onfusing Poland with Turkey?

Did you read the news today? Turkey is in Iraq and they claim to have American suport.

No, Uncle Sam is picking up the bill for your troops in Iraq and Afganistan,Turkey doesnt have any troops in either of these two countries.

Yes,just read that, Turkey has moved forces into " Free Kurdistan" (so still not,technicaly Iraq), doesnt look good,Turkey are definatly maing this move on their own,not through any deals with the states. This is an invasion to counter the kurdish PPK and nothing to do with the wider issuies of Iraq or bush's post 9/11 war on terror.

This being my point, Poland had the empire it was in a position to attain,a land based one( and of course,in the area it was important,but please dont bring up the battle of veinna as saving me from islam,the turks would not have reached these shores) where as other countries,with access to the open sea had overseas territories,(and btw grzegorz, the German empire was one of the reasons behind the early 20th century arms race that led to WW1 so dont be so dismissive.) I neither defend or condone the actions of people 2/3/4 hundred years ago as conditions and accepted social attitudes were far removed from our own.Ie the same attitude that alowed your gentry to keep serfs/slaves allowed our gentry and merchants to expliot aboiginal peoples around the world.

as darius has already pointed out to me, it is a combination of funding,uncle sam picking up a large share of the tab,still more than they have done for our involvement.

So G,when were the f16 fighting falcons first rolled off the production line then genius? Even the Dutch have been flying them since the early 1980s.



And why do they do this,could it be that america has been shaffting them for decades?Could it be that whenever the first two countries attained a level of democratic freedom the good ole US of A ballsed things up starting coups ? Dont get me wrong, Britain had been leading the way in this for years until truman then Ike took over the role of worlds policeman.