The Irish?

The Irish were neutrals in WWII. In WWII!

Now, if Britain became allied with al Quaeda or Saddam or the Taliban, the Irish would fight against Al Quaeda, Saddam, and the Taliban. Until then, don't hold your breath.

The incessant attacks from Kerry Democrats and the Old Europhiles against President George W. Bush is starting to remind me of the Groaci vs. Jame Retief.
(with homage to Keith Laumer :)

What good would assistance from the French and Germans do? I'll tell you what!! ZILCH!! Given the choice of the current alliance that we (the USA) have now or having to deal with the Frogs or the Hienies, I'll take alliance anytime!! Does anyone with any knowledge of history really think assistance from them would amount to a hill of beans. Besides, who in their right mind would want to be indebted to those two UN obstructionists for anything.

They'll never sign on if you call them "frogs' and "heinies," you horrible unilateralist, you.

Two pieces of info about the Irish. Kerry isn't Irish. No Irish at all in his background and the Irish allied with Germany and the Arabs during WWII.
You know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Works for the Irish as well as the Arabs.

The IRA has been training terrorists in the middle east all along and may still be at it for all we know. The MSM as usual is looking the other way.

You could look it up.

Cahill is talking about training the Iraqis - not providing soldiers to stand in the line of fire.

The Irish have an army? Wow, who would have guessed?

Rollins -

And?

1. The French position has pretty clearly invalidated direct assistance, and NATO is already training Iraqis on foreign soil (something the French opposed).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3846415.stm

2. And even if by some delusional miracle the French opened massive security training camps on the Riviera, to imply that such an act would have a fundamental strategic impact on the possibility of success of Iraq is ... childish, insulting or both.

This is too hilarious...apparently, now that the French have burst his bubble, their fallback is to rely on the Irish to bail us out...

As usual, Kerry's position makes no logical sense.

On the one hand, he is trashing involvement in Iraq and trying to use that as a political weapon against his opponent. Heck, Kerry's sister is trying to use Iraq to defeat the Australian PM. If Kerry were to win, it would largely be seen as a repudiation of involvement in Iraq. So which leader of a foreign country would, in their right mind, commit anything additionally to Iraq under such a circumstance, especially after Kerry has gone around and talked about how bad it is?

Kerry is trashing the very product he is telling us he can sell better if we just give him a try.

Realistically, the best thing that can happen so far as increasing the likelihood of further international assistance in Iraq would be for Bush to win big, and for Howard to win big in Australia.

If politicians across the world could sense that committing any resources to Iraq is not politically damaging, and perhaps even politically rewarding, that might be the positive that gets them more involved.

Yes, NATO is providing support, but as the BBC article you reference states: "it falls well short of US hopes that NATO would assume a major military role in Iraq."

There needs to be more training of Iraqis, more than is being done. And the FT article is clear about the French and the Germans having no plans to "send troops." The point being is that there is a difference between refusing to send in troops, and not proving any support at all. The fact is that more needs to be done to get help, in one form or another, than this Administration is doing.

Kerry: "Hello, Mr Chirac, it's a fine day, now that I'm president."

Chirac: "Congratulations, my good friend. Now our two great nations can work together as true allies."

Kerry: "Just what I was calling about, my friend. I ask that you commit your nation, your political capital, and your troops to fight, with us, your great ally in freedom, the Wrong War at the Wrong Time in the Wrong Place. Won't you join us?"

Chirac: "Of course. Now that you agree with me that Iraq is the Wrong War at the Wrong Time in Wrong Place, we will be pleased to join your nation in protecting and re-building Iraq.

Kerry: "Great. I thought you'd see it my way. So what kind of support can we expect, my friend in arms?"

Chirac: "Hold on a sec, Mr President, I have some expired contracts here, which need to be renewed, involving of course some of our finest French corporations, which, I'm sure you will agree, can bring much to the table in the re-building of our ally, the nation of Iraq. Yes?"

Kerry: "My dear friend, I would never bribe a fine ally like yourself to participate in this noble venture between two great allies like the United States and France."

Chirac: "No, no, Mr. President, you don't understand. We want to be bribed. In fact, we require it. I'm sure you, of all people, understand that."

Kerry: "Of course I do. Why, I just got off the phone with Kim Jung Il, and let me tell you about the bribes I offered him. I could tell he was delighted."

Chirac: "I'm sure he was, Mr President. Finally, an American administration with whom we can do business. Things are looking up for the international community. I see nothing but sunny days ahead."

Rollins -

The help is simply not there to be had, nor will it be if Kerry gets elected. Bush's attempts at coalition-building were remarkable for actually even getting support from democratic nations with fervently anti-war populations; the nations that have remained dead-set against assisting the US all had a combination of at least two (and sometimes 3)of the following factors:

1. Contrary strategic interest
2. Contrary financial interest
3. Rabidly anti-war electorates

Kerry's promises to circumvent these pivotal factors as a real platform for change in Iraq is simply not realistic, and Cahill's amateur expression of this ideal is even more ridiculous.

I'd rather have India and Pakistan on my side than France and Germany.

Jettisoning India and Pakistan to suck up to France is, well, Kerry's stated position as far as I can tell.

Kerry acts as if all nations make foreign policy decisions based on how they feel about a particular leader and not on self interest. As Bill points out, that is a naive assumption.

Nations that are not currently assisting us in Iraq made a decision based upon self interest, and that does not change if Kerry gets into office. In fact, if leaders of other nations see Bush paying a political price for Iraq, ironically, that makes them even more reluctant to get involved. Kerry has staked much of his candidacy on a political calculation, that if proven successful, will ultimately negate chances of increased foreign involvement.

Plus, a Kerry presidency stands to alienate many countries from the US. There are our current allies: how many would pull out or reduce their contribution upon a Kerry victory? He has already belittled their contribution and insulted their countries...why would they stay to help him? Plus, again, if Kerry wins, that signals to all of our other allies to pull out lest they meet an unfortunate political fate themselves.

Kerry has painted himself into the ultimate corner...on the one hand, he denigrates the action in Iraq and wants us to pull out; on the other hand, he expects he can get other countries more involved. That does not make sense.

One more downside to any Kerry diplomatic policy: Kerry is running on the economic isolationist platform, promising to curb free trade across the globe.

This wouldn't play too well with many countries, including India.

So how can Kerry expect help in Iraq, when he will be reducing or cutting off trade with so many countries? Kerry's economic policies are no way to win friends.

I think the real theme is that a Kerry presidency would cost us allies in Iraq.

It would certainly precipitate a pullout from the British, as Tony Blair would want to save his political future.

Our other allies would take a Kerry victory as a signal to pull out, or face negative political consequences at home...also, as a signal to pull out before the Americans do.

Kerry has also signaled the Iraqi govt that it considers it to be in essence illegitimate. So you can kiss that alliance working out, and that is probably the most important one of all. As others have remarked, the key to making Iraq work is not so much to get greater assistance from foreign countries, but to get greater assistance from the Iraqi people. This is indeed what we see happening.

Iraq is working, in spite of the hand wringing of the MSM and the doomsaying of the Kerry Kamp. The only thing that would derail it is a Kerry victory.

Victor Davis Hanson predicted India would be one of our great allies in the war on terror. So far, so good.

What is remarkable is Pakistan. I haven't heard anyone give the Bush administration credit for co-opting Pakistan into the cooperation we have received, other than to say we "bribed" them (or Musharaf) into our camp.

In my opinion, Pakistan is the most dangerous place on earth at the moment. Unlike N Korea, it most definitely has the bomb (er, bombs, plural), it has tested the bomb, and it has missiles with decent range. Its historical nemesis, India, also has the bomb, obviously setting up the scenario for a nuclear exchange in nations of hundreds of millions of people. It has a rabid system of madrasas, supposedly funded by Saudi money, preaching a creed of Wahabbi fundamentalism, and apparently producing some very bad people who do very bad things. It is the sanctuary of choice of Taliban and al Quaeda refugees from Afghanistan and other places of ill-repute. And it holds a population 6 times as large as Iraq.

I don't know who brought Pakistan on board, Rumsfeld or Powell, or some underling in the State Department. But is was a coup of monumental significance.

I'm sure India is gratified with this turn of events, as well as post-Taliban Afghanistan. But why doesn't the Bush administration get any credit for this achievement (o,r more appropriately, why isn't this achievement even on the radar screen)?

"... a single-bolt-action military rifle": maybe a Civil War memento?

FOr the trivia followers: I mention the Civil War because it's only a week ago that I learned "sharpshooter" should be "Sharps` Shooter", originally applied to Union snipers using a special Sharps rifle.
---
Or, via a commentor on Ms. Malkin's blog, it might be
http://www.mosinnagant.net/global%20mosin%20nagants/Chinese-T53Carbine.asp
which is bolt action, sometimes had a bayonet (making it an ``assault weapon``), and apparently was used in Viet Nam. But if so, how did the Senator come by it?

Bill -

"The help is simply not there to be had, nor will it be if Kerry gets elected" - that is an awfully defeatist statement. Yes, the countries had contrary interests in going to war, but what has been has been done, and we can convinced them that it is now in their interest to help stabilize Iraq. Since Bush will not swallow his pride and acknowledge mistakes, there is little chance that he can get the help.

I'm afraid I'll have to take gentl disagreement with "mannie", the Groaci never showed as much ineptness as the Kerry campaign has. If anything, Kery & co. resemble the "run of the mill" members of the CDT (Corps Diploatique Terrestriane) in the Retief books (I too enjoy htem, especially the omnibus collection published by Baen).

Rollins: your logic amazes me.

Kerry would not be able to get anyone on board to help us in Iraq...he has already burned those bridges.

Kerry talks about this being the wrong war...well, who will want to support the wrong war? Kerry talks about getting us out of Iraq...well, which country is wanting to go in as we are pulling out? It doesn't make any sense.

Also, given how Kerry has insulted our allies in Iraq, who will be disposed to help him?

And if Bush loses, everyone across the globe will interpret that as a signal to keep hands off of Iraq, lest they get burned politically as well.

Adding to that is the outrageous remark by Kerry's sister, an official representative of the Kerry campaign, telling Australians that they are more vulnerable to terrorist attacks because of their support for the US.

No, a Kerry presidency would get us far less help in Iraq, not greater help. If Kerry were to get elected, expect to see a race among countries as to who can get out faster.

Kind of off topic, but you must check out the latest ad by the Progress for America voter fund, called "Finish It":

http://www.pfavoterfund.com/

Rollins -

I think that your line of reasoning is off to think that it's simply a matter of Bush's personal pride. I used to think that a new presidency would give some of the Euros political cover to offer assistance (and I would have considered a Gephart, for example), but it's now very clear that any help would be tactical and short term, as France, Russia and China are now very clearly overt strategic competitors.

Failing to recognize this fact operates in an old, naive paradigm, no matter how much we'd like it to be otherwise. Germany is the only real target for assistance.

No fucking way you could get the Irish to deploy troops to Iraq. At the most you could maybe get some Rangers out of them, but I highly highly doubt it. No way the free state government is going to do that.

Kerry could try to get the Iraqis to help in Iraq, but he already burned that bridge...

*ahem* Speaking in defense of the Irish, they have always made first-rate soldiers (cf. the Irish Brigade, the Irish Guard, and the "Wild Geese" - no, not from the movie). And yes, Ireland does have an army, though it's quite small.

I guess I am naive - "as France, Russia and China are now very clearly overt strategic competitors" - to whom? Each other, or us?

But I do think it will provide cover - as the reasoning will be to support the Iraqi people / fight terrorism, not go wage preemptive war. Kerry can at least try, I have not seen Bush try.

Great, just what the Iraqis need -- training by the surrender monkeys! What, are they going to teach them? The proper angle to stick their noses in the air while maintaining an attitude of haughty arrogance, all while learning the correct wine and cheese to eat when sitting under a white flag? Problem is, if the Iraqis lose, there's no alcohol in the new mullahcracy...

- Eric.

1. China is an overt strategic competitor that's got clout.

2. Russia is a middling competitor that needs an economic breakthrough.

3. France is a legend in their own mind, and effectively destroys itself with the stubborn will to compete.

The popular mythology that Bush doesn't try is a product of the conventional wisdom set by the NYT's editorial page and the bull in a chinashop anti-diplomacy exemplified by Rumsfeld's improper statements.

Rumsfeld's power has waned, Powell's has waxed, and they're still not biting. To some extent, this is an unfair rap on the Bush admin.

Like it or not, the world is rearranging itself and has been since the end of the Cold War (just like it did after WWI and WWII).

The old way of thinking no longer works.

I agree with one of the previous posts: India and Pakistan are arguably more important than France and Germany in this new war, and Bush has handled both brilliantly. Kerry's isolationist stand on trade alone would drive India away from us.

Liberals don't seem to understand that other countries make decisions based primarily on self interest. And there is no way in hell that leaders of other nations will risk their political future just to help their buddy Kerry. That is hopelessly naive.

Let's also face it: Kerry has already burned his diplomatic bridges anyway. He's insulted every one of our current allies, and even told Australia that being on our side hurts them. Can't you just imagine the conversation Kerry will have with these countries:
"So Jacques...tell me how many troops you want to commit to the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time? Oh, yeah, while you're sending troops in we'll be pulling ours out..."

And in perhaps the most unforgivable move of them all, Kerry has already alienated Allawi of Iraq. So the Iraqi govt would feel no confidence at all with Kerry at the helm.

Kerry would be an utter disaster for this country and the world.

1. Kerry has a secret plan and it can only be used after he is president.
2. The UN must be involved.
3. It must bring in the involvement of the French and Germans.

I thought a lot about this. What conditions/situation would involve all three elements. Almost everyone says the French will never increase their involvement. The UN won't increase their involvement but didn't they suggest that the way to increase UN involvement was for the US to turn over control to the UN. Think about it. Kerry could never be elected if the following came out. The French and Germans would deny that they would help even under these condition. But if Kerry was president and made an offer to put the operations in Iraq including US military under UN control, isn't it possible that the UN would accept. Who would be the UN commander? A French or German gemeral? Would France increase involvement if one of their generals were in command? Would they allow troops there? After all the US troops would still be doing the heavy lifting. The French troops could be patrolling the borders between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. It is about the only scenerio that fits with what Kerry is saying.

Actually, Doug, there is a scenario that will work: quash the investigation of the oil-for-palaces program, promise to allow the French and Germans to compete for oil contracts (or to fulfill the debts incurred under Saddam's regime) and publicly kiss their ass for sending what few troops they can must over to Iraq.

In other words, a Kerry version of the bribed and coerced. Or, just bribed.

"Cateagle" makes a great point but I rather think the Corps Diplomatique Terrestrienne most resembles Kerry's idea of how foreign policy should be conducted. (You know, throw taxpayer money at them scumbags and hope they don't make waves.)

Need I say that "Dubya" makes a fine, damn fine version of Jame Retief! Unflappable and always doing exactly the right thing!

It is SO fine.

- If anyone with a working set of brain cells still wants to entertain the ignoramus idea that France would assist in even the war on terror, much less the war in Iraq then let Au' Francias semantically moon you themselves. Hindrocket at powerline has a post elucidating Frances latest show of total antipity to the interests of America and the free world. A total barren show of self interest in terms of Iraqi oil rights and passivation of its own 5 million Muslim population.

- Its gotten to the point that if and when the Jihadists are pushed into a corner in France and turn on them I'n tempted to not raise a finger to help them. And don't think it copuld'nt happen if we are successful in denying the extremists many of their present territorial assylums.

- And if that comes to pass how long do you think it will be before car and human bombing's begin to arise in ernest against France itself. they're playing a really dangerous game. Germany and Spain as well. Russia's coming around at least in the world fight. That wakeup call in Beslin and the other terrorist activities in the past year has had that effect. But its Putins doing.

- Since the early 90's the Jihadists have operated training camps in White Russia and several area's around Chechnya in the upper Caucusus. They even highjacked the Chechnyan fight for independence by taking over the movement and killing most of the leaders. Whole villages were turned into death camps. The Russian Army was finally forced to go in and regain control to stop the slaughter.

- Kerry is totally out of whack in his so called Iraqi plan, and the plan for fighting terrorism. France will never do anything....in fact based on what they just put forth they would obviously want Kerry to win knowing he will probably turn tail and run.

This is drfiting way off, but Russia wants us to scratch their back in the terrorism game, so they might be interested.

"Rumsfeld's power has waned, Powell's has waxed, and they're still not biting. To some extent, this is an unfair rap on the Bush admin." I am sorry, but considering the lives we have lost, and the money spent, Bush should be taking the lead - not Powell or Rumsfeld.

Bill Peschel, there's at least some evidence that we've gone really light on what we _do_ suspect the French of in trying to get as far as we've already gotten.

The composition of the arms depots in Iraq, not pressing France on where exactly the forged Nigerian documents came from, Tera Fina Elf's contracts, where the Iraqi Intelligence agency was getting verbatim transcripts of US-French negotiations in the week before we invaded....

All sorts of things that could have been pressed aggressively by the administration - but weren't. (They've been played in the press somewhat, but not a peep from anyone but Rumsfeld in the administration.)

If Pakistan hadn't chosen 'our' side, things would be the very definition of dicey. A nuclear, terrorist supporting, sabre-rattling country, with religious fervor and an ongoing 'warm' war over territory with its neighboring nuclear power.

- On that point Rollins I would tend to agree with you....obviously all through the Iraqi war the Al Qaeda backed elements have shifted direction skillfully getting the most out of what they have. They may be ideological, and theological nut cases....but they have leaders that have done this sort of thing before and know the workings of the tribal minds of the middle easterners...

- Thats a bit different than Bush and company did this wrong and that wrong....and yes I think there's some things we could have done differently...But this is a different type of asymetrical war. And one that the enemy is prepared for suicide to achieve. That makes for a different ballgame. We are learning on the Fly, and no one, not Kerry or anyone else would have anticipated every Al Qaeda move.

- A democracy, even a psuedo one, flanking both sides of Iran would drive a very large sabre through the Al Qaeda movement. thats why Iran is trying so hard to get the bomb and long range rockets. They see the hand writing on the wall. France and the Euro's are setting back letting us fight the war for them, the same as they did in WWII against the Axis. I believe in the long run they may come to rue their intransigence....

Kerry has allies all over the Middle-East; they even use his talking points -- right down to his very words. Michael Moore calls them "minute-men" and "freedom fighters."

How does the MSM and the democrats get away with the half-truths and out right lies they perpetrate? Well, Mr. Moore said it all when he was in Europe: The American people are stupid. They count on the citizenry to be stupid, to be easily manipulated, and to have very short memories and attention spans.

Thank everyone from Bill Gates, and those like him, who developed computer programming and technology for the masses, on through those who developed the internet, for democratizing information. Think for a moment what it would be if we did not have these tools at our disposal at this critical time.

And thanks to the bloggers, bless 'em.

8149 How can this all be as nice? Check out my site http://www.pai-gow-keno.com