Polish President Slams Kerry After Debate Snub

[igloo]

POLISH PRESIDENT SLAMS KERRY AFTER DEBATE SNUB

Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski has slammed Dem president hopeful John Kerry for not recognizing Poland's contributions and sacrifice to the war in Iraq.

"It is sad that a senator with 20 years of experience does not recognize Polish contribution. This is immoral," Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski told FACTS in an interview commenting on the US Presidential Debate.

"It is sad that a senator with 20 years of experience underestimates Polish sacrifice, this is sad."

The Polish President added however that one should consider this was a part of the ongoing electoral campaign.

"I do not think this was out of ignorance," the president emphasized on the TVN Facts.

"There is one thing which should be stated clearly: this coalition is not just the United States, Great Britain, Australia alone; it also involves participation of Polish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Spanish soldiers who have died. It is immoral not to recognize the involvement we contributed based on our conviction that there should be unity in fighting terrorism, that there was a need to display international solidarity and that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous individual of this world."

"President Bush acted like a real Texan gentleman, he made sure to show appreciation for other countries' involvement in the coalition," Kwasniewski pointed out.

[jtk4]

poland was not involved in the initial attack on iraq. Like kerry said great britian and australia were the only ones the helped.

[mursa]

..you forgot to post that Poland is most probably going to reduce it's 2,500 troop deployment in Iraq by 40% ,come Jan 2005 .

lol

[jtk4]

KERRY: The United Nations, Kofi Annan offered help after Baghdad fell. And we never picked him up on that and did what was necessary to transfer authority and to transfer reconstruction. It was always American-run.

Secondly, when we went in , there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better.

Did poland send troops when we went in? Igloo i could be wrong but i do not think they did, and if they didn't this guy can go shove a fucking sausage up his ass.

[igloo]

poland was not involved in the initial attack on iraq. Like kerry said great britian and australia were the only ones the helped.

Great Britain and Australia were the only ones that helped?....so now we are making distinctions as to who participated in the initial invasion and those who came in afterwards.......LUDICROUS!

So a life that is lost on the initial invasion is worth more than a life lost after the regime fell?.....sacrifices made during the initial invasion are weighted more than sacrifices after the regime fell?

And you know better, and I know you do....

Kerry has been reckless and insulting with this "talking point" about alliances in Iraq....period. It is indefensible.....

[igloo]

KERRY: The United Nations, Kofi Annan offered help after Baghdad fell. And we never picked him up on that and did what was necessary to transfer authority and to transfer reconstruction. It was always American-run.

Secondly, when we went in , there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better.

Did poland send troops when we went in? Igloo i could be wrong but i do not think they did, and if they didn't this guy can go shove a fucking sausage up his ass.

I don't recall if they did or not.....And I also understand Kerry' sstatement of when "we went in"......but it does not dismiss his overall shameful stance towards those who have participated in the overall effort--whether it was in the initial invasion or afterwards

[igloo]

..you forgot to post that Poland is most probably going to reduce it's 2,500 troop deployment in Iraq by 40% ,come Jan 2005 .

lol

Wow....this is really something to apply a "LOL" to....once again shows what a jerkoff you are..

For those adults who are interested in some insight into Poland's thinking:

Poland Leaders Aim to Pull Iraq Troops

Mon Oct 4, 5:03 PM ET Middle East - AP

By VANESSA GERA, Associated Press writer

WARSAW, Poland - Poland should withdraw its troops from Iraq (news - web sites) by the end of next year, Polish leaders said Monday, the first time the key U.S. ally has indicated a timeframe for pulling its soldiers out of the wartorn nation.

President Aleksander Kwasniewski said no final decision has been made on when to withdraw forces but Warsaw was considering the late 2005 deadline with the hopes that elections scheduled for January in Iraq would bring stability to the country.

"We decided to speak with the Iraqis and our coalition partners (and) the United States about a reduction of the Polish forces from Jan. 1 — and maybe to finish our mission at the end of 2005," Kwasniewski said on a visit to Paris.

The issue was sparked when Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski mentioned the possible pullout date in an interview, the first Polish official to do so publicly.

Szmajdzinski argued that 2 1/2 years in Iraq would be "enough" for the Polish military and said his suggestion was aimed at countering "cheap populism" by opponents of the Polish presence. However, he later said his remarks were his "personal opinion" and "not the official position of the government."

"In my opinion, the deadline should be the date of expiry of the U.N. Security Council's resolution 1546," Szmajdzinski was quoted as telling the Gazeta Wyborcza daily. That resolution provided for the handover of power to Iraqi authorities and includes steps that run through December 2005.

Prime Minister Marek Belka, who has maintained that he wants to transfer more authority to Iraq to make an eventual withdrawal possible, said he had not been consulted on Szmajdzinski's remarks.

"The prime minister expressed his displeasure with my public statement before the government adopts a formal stand," Szmajdzinski told reporters later in the day after a meeting between the two leaders.

In Washington, a senior White House official said the U.S. administration did not believe Poland had changed its position.

"Their position remains the same — that their troops would be there as long as it takes," the U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The Poles have made clear their position is one where any decisions they make will be mission-driven."

Separately, Ukrainian authorities released a letter in which Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih asked the former Soviet republic not to withdraw its troops, saying the foreign forces were needed in Iraq to "face the ongoing reality of global terrorism."

Salih thanked Ukraine's president for his country's "contribution to the improvement of Iraq's security, economy, governance" and said withdrawing any of the nearly 1,600 Ukrainian troops would have grave consequences for Iraq and international community.

Ukraine has said it plans to reduce its contingent by 200 troops starting with the next rotation scheduled to be completed in October. President Leonid Kuchma had no immediate response to the letter.

Observers said the Polish defense minister's comments had less to do with state policy on Iraq than internal politics.

Belka's government faces a parliamentary vote of confidence on Oct. 15 and a leading member of his junior coalition partner, the Labor Union, has threatened to withdraw support for Belka unless he first presents a plan for pulling Polish troops out of Iraq.

The Iraq mission has broad political support in Poland but opposition has been growing among the Polish public. An opposition party, the Polish Peasants' Party, has launched a petition seeking an immediate pullout.

Poland last year took command of a multinational security force in central Iraq that currently includes about 6,000 troops, including more than 2,400 Polish soldiers.

Szmajdzinski said the mission in "such difficult conditions" is a major challenge for a former Warsaw Pact army that is still "reaching new capabilities and introducing new equipment."

"It is enough," he said. "It is a rational period of time."

In Paris, Kwasniewski said that he hoped the elections are going to bring stability to Iraq.

"Our plans are known: we want to reduce our forces after January 2005 and we are thinking very seriously about ending the mission . . . Will it be at the end of 2005 ... or another date? It's hard to say today," he said.

[mursa]

Dear Sheeploo ,

I laugh not at the fact the the poles are leaving , but rather that you leave out a much more important story relating to poland & the us ...which is that they are going to leave iraq SOON ...

.

..but you only post material that is convenient to your sheep dropping rhetoric .

I applaud you in posting the article though .... imma have to give you some reputation points for that .

[igloo]

Dear Sheeploo ,

I laugh not at the fact the the poles are leaving , but rather that you leave out a much more important story relating to poland & the us ...which is that they are going to leave iraq SOON ...

.

..but you only post material that is convenient to your sheep dropping rhetoric .

I applaud you in posting the article though .... imma have to give you some reputation points for that .

I didn't leave out anything douchebag....the story was about Poland's dissatisfaction with Kerry......a very important one since it relates to Kerry's reckless and insulting campaign rhetoric.........this is not just "convenient" for me, but a legitimate area of question about someone who wants to be the next President. (one that supposedly "values" alliances)....if you can't recognize that, you are a retard (that case was closed long ago)

Poland leaving Iraq is another story that has nothing to do with what was posted, nor does it have anything to do with Bush vs Kerry....although that is exactly what you attempted......

...........But since you brought up Poland leaving, you left out the reasoning behind their thinking you fucking retard (which YOU should have posted).....which is extremely relevant and important than just saying they are "leaving", followed by a "LOL" you mental midget.....it would seem you tried to introduce sheep dropping material which is convenient to your bullshit jerkoff...

Just go away mental midget......isn't there a Barney festival on TV more suited to your IQ

[jtk4]

nice try, but to try to make something out of nothing is stupid.

What kerry was talking about was who helped in the initial attack, Bush then said you forgot about Poland. He was wrong Poland did not help. They are helping now but that is not what Kerry was talking about. I wonder if poland got a little pressure to make this comment.

[mrmatas2277]

I laugh not at the fact the the poles are leaving , but rather that you leave out a much more important story relating to poland & the us ...which is that they are going to leave iraq SOON ...

to be fair: from what i have read and heard in the news, Polish PM said it was mentioned...its not set in stone...

[jtk4]

if poland says they are going to pull their troops out does that really mean they are going to put more troops in?

[mrmatas2277]

if poland says they are going to pull their troops out does that really mean they are going to put more troops in?

<insert Polish joke here>

[igloo]

nice try, but to try to make something out of nothing is stupid.

What kerry was talking about was who helped in the initial attack, Bush then said you forgot about Poland. He was wrong Poland did not help. They are helping now but that is not what Kerry was talking about. I wonder if poland got a little pressure to make this comment.

I already acknowledged what Kerry said.........you need to acknowledge that to make distinctions between who participated in the main offensive and who participated three weeks later is ABSURD (and is yet another attempt to miminimze the allies contributions).....And you need to acknowledge that Kerry's overall stance on alliances in Iraq is insulting and reckless......one should be able to make this recognition whether you support Kerry or not....this is a shameful stance and attack on his part...

And how about simply dismissing the conspiracy that Poland was "pressured" to say anything, and that they are genuinely insulted...because that is EXACTLY what Kerry and his cohorts have done....

[igloo]

to be fair: from what i have read and heard in the news, Polish PM said it was mentioned...its not set in stone...

I posted an article above on the Poles thoughts and statements

[vicman]

is costa rica still in the "coalition of the willing" even though they have no army?

[jtk4]

I already acknowledged what Kerry said.........you need to acknowledge that to make distinctions between who participated in the main offensive and who participated three weeks later is ABSURD (and is yet another attempt to miminimze the allies contributions).....And you need to acknowledge that Kerry's overall stance on alliances in Iraq is insulting and reckless......one should be able to make this recognition whether you support Kerry or not....this is a shameful stance and attack on his part...

And how about simply dismissing the conspiracy that Poland was "pressured" to say anything, and that they are genuinely insulted...because that is EXACTLY what Kerry and his cohorts have done....

The topic of this thread is poland slams kerry over debate snub. In the debate kerry did not snub poland. This is an example of people trying to make something out of nothing and putting words in other peoples mouth. How is it absurd when the topic of conversation was the original attack in Iraq. That was the topic, how bush led us in there with minimal support. Nobody was talking about after. Bush is the one who fucked up and said that Kerry forgot poland, even though he did not.

You can try to spin this into whatever you want but you are wrong.

[jtk4]

is costa rica still in the "coalition of the willing" even though they have no army?

nope they "pulled out". Evn though they have no army and was not sending any money.They did not want to be on the list.

[mursa]

is costa rica still in the "coalition of the willing" even though they have no army?

At this time, 33 non-U.S. military forces are contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq. These countries are Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

PS....notice how Mongolia (sheeploo's) home grazing ground is in it .

[igloo]

The topic of this thread is poland slams kerry over debate snub. In the debate kerry did not snub poland. This is an example of people trying to make something out of nothing and putting words in other peoples mouth. How is it absurd when the topic of conversation was the original attack in Iraq. That was the topic, how bush led us in there with minimal support. Nobody was talking about after. Bush is the one who fucked up and said that Kerry forgot poland, even though he did not.

You can try to spin this into whatever you want but you are wrong.

Yes, the headline said "Poland slams Kerry over debate" snub, but it is more than just that, and to say otherwise is spin.....period. Kerry subbed Poland...period.

As the Poles said:

"There is one thing which should be stated clearly: this coalition is not just the United States, Great Britain, Australia alone; it also involves participation of Polish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Spanish soldiers who have died. It is immoral not to recognize the involvement we contributed based on our conviction that there should be unity in fighting terrorism, that there was a need to display international solidarity and that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous individual of this world."

There SHOULD NOT BE A DISTINCTION between those countries that participated in the initial invasion, and those who served afterwards......period........if anyone is spinning, it was JOHN KERRY when he made the statement in the debate, and it it now you by trying to defend him......it was John Kerry who SNUBBED Poland (and others) by making distinctions....distinctions that are irrelevant and insulting

This is not making something out of nothing at all (and you know I have been on Kerry a long time about this)........John Kerry has been reckless and insulting for a long time by his constant attack on the contributions of allies.....and he made it worse by now making a distinction by those who were part of the invasion, and those who participated afterwards...

If you don't agree with me fine, but obviously Poland is pissed....at the end of the day, that is what matters

And sorry man--this statement by you is outrageous: How is it absurd when the topic of conversation was the original attack in Iraq. That was the topic, how bush led us in there with minimal support. Nobody was talking about after..

The original attack on Iraq?????....did you think that Poland agreed to come on board after the initial invasion, or that their involvement was defined and planned before the invasion....get real man.....

The countries that are part of the coalition were there before the invasion, as were their roles defined....whether their actual involvement was part of the invasion or afterwards is IRRELEVANT....

And if Kerry could demonstrate he is a worthy CIC, he would know that the U.S. Military command PREFERRED that the military footprint of the invading force be kept to a bare minimum in terms of other participants (too many and it becomes an operational nightmare, especially with the "speed" in which the plan called for)

Sorry man, you are dead wrong......Kerry is WRONG for his continual degrading of the alliances that are there, and he was wrong in the debate to make a distinction between before or afterwards.......

Just wondering, why is Kerry even worried about how many countries were involved in the initial invasion??.........isn't he against "outsourcing" fighting to those other than "the best trained and equipped fighting force in the world"....based on his own logic, Australia and the British should sat on the sidelines too........

Sorry man, but I think you are spinning a defense of Kerry here that does not fly....

[mrmatas2277]

At this time, 33 non-U.S. military forces are contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq. These countries are Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

bro i think D.R. and Honduras pulled out....(i might be wrong)

[siceone]

I Think it's funny that Liberals say that poland didn't help at first but are quick to point out that most of the casualties came after Bush said "mission accomplished" which he never said by the way.

[jtk4]

Nice try, i can see you are putting the spin machine in overtime. Kerry was talking about the invasion the topic on hand was the invasion, poland was not a part of it so he did not forget them, thus he did not snub them. There is nothing more to this story.

end of story.

If he was talking about the occupation or even the war in general, and did not mention Poland then yeah be pissed. But he was not.

He has "snubbed" other countries with his comments of coalition of the greedy and shit like that. IF you want to bitch about that go ahead, but this is grasping at straws, or more like trying to make take the heat off bush because he lost the debate. What is funny is the public will be stupid enough to go along with it.

[igloo]

Nice try, i can see you are putting the spin machine in overtime. Kerry was talking about the invasion the topic on hand was the invasion, poland was not a part of it so he did not forget them, thus he did not snub them. There is nothing more to this story.

end of story.

If he was talking about the occupation or even the war in general, and did not mention Poland then yeah be pissed. But he was not.

He has "snubbed" other countries with his comments of coalition of the greedy and shit like that. IF you want to bitch about that go ahead, but this is grasping at straws, or more like trying to make take the heat off bush because he lost the debate. What is funny is the public will be stupid enough to go along with it.

Sorry man, I guess your denial syndrome is in overtime

You keep ignoring the key component: distinction. This new little play on words by Kerry amounted to nothing but yet another cheap shot at the allies, another attempt to de-value the coalition, and an enormous snub at Poland. Case closed.

And YOU falling for it and actually promoting "invasion/occupation" is a little concerning.......the bigger question is if the public is stupid enough to buy Kerry's new way of attacking the coalition.

All in all, Kerry snubbed Poland..... again...and no matter how much you try and defend his statement, or promote this NEW distinction bucket for allies, or pretend this is not a big deal........you can't discount the fact that it insulted Poland.

It is a big deal for John "Alliances" Kerry and he did snub Poland. Case closed.

BTW--my last post was not spin, but accurate analysis. You should it read it again, you may learn something

Good battle..I gotta run, won't be able to hit you back til tomorrow. I am sure there will be plenty of new topics tomorrow.

[jtk4]

http://www.youforgotpoland.com/