Originally posted by septbride2002
I answered your question here was my take on it --
It seems to me, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, but the current allies that are helping us are not putting their countrymen at risk. 90% of the military killed in the war on terror have been American. 90% of the funding has been American Dollars, and Sen. Kerry made a point that if the State of Missouri were to become a seperate ally we would be the 3rd largest country after the rest of the US and Britian. So I don't think he is insulting our allies but saying - we need countries with bigger militaries and a bit more funding to help us get the job done.
~Amanda
The facts are that the USA has been defending the rest of the world for the last 30 years. European countries have allowed their militaries to wither. They have no real offensive capacity.
Like it or not - we and the Brits and Aussies are the only ones who count. The others are just sitting on the sidelines. Poland has very little and they put at risk a large percentage of what they had. Russia has the capacity but not the money. France and Germany have neither the capacity nor the money. China is a mystery.
That is what steams me so much about the Europeans - we have saved them from domination twice in one century. We have left a half million of our young men dead on the battlefield in thier behalf.
We have spent untold Billions - into the trillions - of dollars rebuilding their infrastructure and re-establishing their economies.
Our economy is what stabilizes the worlds currency and takes the hits when cycles go up and down.
We finance the UN = all the while the UN takes every chance it can to stab us in the back.
We have never sought to weaken any one of their countries - they are on the hunt to weaken us any way they can.
France = Germany = Russia = (and China) were being bought off by Saddam Hussein. They were on the take. THAT is why they opposed our mission to take him out of power. They knew they would lose their source of illegal funding - AND they were afraid that if we got into the county soon enough we would find their dirty fingerprints all over his plans for WMDs. They had sold the stuff to him.
They wanted more time for "sanctions to work" = meaning more time for Saddam to get rid of the evidence.
And yet - Kerry still wants to appeal to THEM - he wants THEM to be "partners" in the reconstruction = this means he wants them to get back into the corruption game as soon as possible.
I say to heck with them - they sabatoged our efforts - they stabbed us in the back at the UN - they reneged on their promise - they allowed us to take all the punishment and the costs - but now when there is a pile of money in sight, they want back in the game - and KERRY wants to LET them in.
I say Kerry is unequal to the task of presiding over this country. His attitude is dangerous to our security. He would "play ball" with these corrupt regimes - meaning he would cave to them so they would invite him to their wine-tasting parties and say good things about him in their press.
I want a good old fashioned patriot in the white house - one who loves America FIRST and will be friends with anyone who shares our values.
Bush is the man.
I will no longer discuss this, but really if interested in air security you should research this and see the dirty unspoken facts of what he is trying to do. They are fighting this hard but after the election if he wins he can't run again for a 3rd term and won't care who he ticks off and that is the fear of the union. Again for me, subject closed but do some research and be well informed of what goes on behind the scenes on not just this but other issues as well.