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 % 6.28 % (12)
No92 %92 %92 % 92.15 % (176)
I do not know0 %0 %0 % 0.00 % (0)
I have no opinion1 %1 %1 % 1.57 % (3)
Other, please list in comments0 %0 %0 % 0.00 % (0)

Total votes: 191
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 world governments support Isreals actions against the Palestinians?

[ Results | Polls ]

Votes: 278

This Day in History
1779: American troops under General Anthony Wayne captured Stony Point, N.Y., with a loss to the British of more than 600 killed or captured.

1862: David Glasgow Farragut, in recognition of his victory at New Orleans, is promoted to Rear Admiral, the first officer to hold that rank in the history of the U.S. Navy.

1863: The draft riot enters its fourth day in New York City in response to the Enrollment Act, which was enacted on March 3, 1863.

1912: A Naval torpedo, launched from an airplane, was patented by Rear Admiral Bradley A. Fiske.

1915: First Navy ships, battleships Ohio, Missouri, and Wisconsin transit the Panama Canal.


1916: Captain Raynal Bolling commanded the 1st Aero Squadron, New York National Guard, when it was mobilized during the Mexican Border Crisis.

1920: Gen. Amos Fries was appointed first US army chemical warfare chief.

1927: Augusto Sandino began a five year war against the US occupation of Nicaragua.

1940: Hitler issues his Directive 16. It begins, "I have decided to begin to prepare for, and if necessary to carry out, an invasion of England."

1943: The US 3rd Division attacks Agrigento and Porto Empedocle.