Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size
Login

Military Photos



Current poll results


Should the U.S. be paying other countries to do their part in the war on terrorism?

Yes6 %6 %6 % 6.15 % (12)
No91 %91 %91 % 91.79 % (179)
I do not know0 %0 %0 % 0.51 % (1)
I have no opinion1 %1 %1 % 1.54 % (3)
Other, please list in comments0 %0 %0 % 0.00 % (0)

Total votes: 195
One vote is allowed per day

[ Voting booth | Other polls ]

Comments

Display Order
Re: Should the U.S. be paying other countries to do their pa
by Anonymous
on Mar 02, 2003
I can think of a few reasons why not: Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Noriega and every other leader or government or "resistance movement" our government has chosen to buy off with money or weapons who later conveniently disremembered from whom they got that crucial grub stake at one time long ago! On the other hand, our Congress members are paying one another off constantly for favors at voting time, so maybe it is simply an american tradition? Allies-of-convenience are informal alliances, and not to be trusted...too much is at stake this time, but the deed has already been done. Maybe the better question would be, "Now that the U.S. has paid off other countries to do their part in the war on terrorism, what are the double-crosses likely to be in the coming years?"
Bluehawk

Re: Should the U.S. be paying other countries to do their pa
by Anonymous
on Mar 03, 2003
What ever happened to 'G.W.'s' "you are for us, or against us" speach right after Sept.11 ??

Just wondering how much we have FORGOTTEN over the last several months.

If France isn't for us, they are against us. Same with Germany, Belgium, and any body else that doesn't want US on their side later on.

Terry

Re: Should the U.S. be paying other countries to do their pa
by Anonymous
on Mar 04, 2003

Throughout history, deals of convenience have been made by the United States. Some come back to bite us, true, but most are the only way to get things accomplished. If bribing a foreigh official, or government, can save American Lives, do it! The goal is too great to let misguided political purity stand in its' way. If Saddam provides a nuclear weapon to a terrorist for use on an American City, the devestation would hurt too much. Get this thing done!


Re: Should the U.S. be paying other countries to do their pa
by Anonymous
on Mar 09, 2003

A qualified yes. If another country can help, but does not have the money, then we should assist them. There must, however, be a quid pro quo and the US should monitor the use of the money.


Only logged in users are allowed to comment. register/log in
Military History
Forum Posts

Military Polls

Should the guards involved with the Abu Ghraib prison be punished?

[ Results | Polls ]

Votes: 129

This Day in History
1066: Claiming his right to the English throne, William, duke of Normandy, invades England at Pevensey on Britains southeast coast.

1106: King Henry of England defeats his brother Robert at the Battle of Tinchebrai and reunites England and Normandy.

1238: James of Aragon retakes Valencia, Spain, from the Arabs.

1850: Congress outlaws flogging on Navy ships.

1863: Union Generals Alexander M. McCook and Thomas Crittenden lose their commands and are ordered to Indianapolis, Indiana, to face a court of inquiry following the Federal defeat at Chickamauga, Tennessee.

1874: Colonel Ronald Mackenzie raids a war camp of Comanche and Kiowa at the Battle of Palo Duro Canyon, Texas, slaughtering 2,000 of their horses.

1918: The Battle of Flanders begins.

1924: Three U.S. Army aircraft arrive in Seattle, Washington after completing a 22 day round-the-world flight.

1942: Gen. Henry "Hap" Arnold gives highest priority to the development of two exceptional aircraft, the B-35 Flying Wing and the B-36 Peacemaker, intended for bombing runs from bases in the United States to targets in Europe.

1944: Marines occupy islands in Palaus under cover of naval aircraft and gunfire support.