It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Poland President quickly changes his mind about staying in Iraq?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 10:45 AM
link   
This is an unusual turn of events. Just yesterday President Aleksander Kwasniewski said he was pulling troops out of Iraq a few months early. Now after talking with Bush on the phone he's decided to stay there as long as it takes.

WARSAW, Poland President Aleksander Kwasniewski told President Bush on Friday that Polish troops will stay in Iraq "as long as needed, plus one day longer," his national security adviser said.

The comments came one day after Kwasniewski said Polish troops might leave Iraq months earlier than planned and that Poland had been misled over Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction arsenal.


www.foxnews.com...

I don't know about y'all but this is very strange. Why change his mind all of the sudden? Do you think Bush threatened him if he pulled his troops out?




posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Why not. He threatened other nations before we invaded. This would be nothing new...



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The Polish Pres thinking that he was mis-lead about the WMD was a big deal. Especially with him publicly stating it.

Part of what he said seems like it might have been a reaction to the attacks in Madrid.

What Bush said to him is anybody's guess...??

[Edited on 19-3-2004 by Facefirst]



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
This is an unusual turn of events. Just yesterday President Aleksander Kwasniewski said he was pulling troops out of Iraq a few months early. Now after talking with Bush on the phone he's decided to stay there as long as it takes.

WARSAW, Poland President Aleksander Kwasniewski told President Bush on Friday that Polish troops will stay in Iraq "as long as needed, plus one day longer," his national security adviser said.

The comments came one day after Kwasniewski said Polish troops might leave Iraq months earlier than planned and that Poland had been misled over Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction arsenal.


www.foxnews.com...

I don't know about y'all but this is very strange. Why change his mind all of the sudden? Do you think Bush threatened him if he pulled his troops out?





Could be something bigger was revealed to him. Something bigger than a threat. Maybe there is another threat of somekind facing the world, or something bigger than just a threat to Poland. Maybe it is better that his troops stay there longer for the world, or something.

U know what i'm saying?
I'm a bit drunk from alcohol abuse


But...I think ya get my drift.

A higher reason that it is better to keep his troops there event hough being lied to about WMD, or about terrorism, or about freedom and democracy...?



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Or maybe this is a Coalition of the Coerced. But, I don't think anything dubious took place on the phone call with Pres. Bush.

I imagine the phone call appealed to Poland's top guy's compassion. Let's face it folks, we may have gone there under false and misleading circumstances, but we are there none the less. We now have an obligation to the Iraqi people to help them rebuild their country and make it safer. Just dropping them like a hot potato will only increase bitterness of their people towards America and Western Civ....just my opinion.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thorfinn Skullsplitter
Why not. He threatened other nations before we invaded. This would be nothing new...


I have to agree with you. Don't agree with Bush Jr. and YOU could be the next 'terrorist' that the US goes after.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   
This may just be something that goes on all the time with leaders, but the press has these things more in the spotlight.

I'm sure ol' George just had a little heart to heart with the Polish president, and reminded him how the game is played by Those in Power. Just a friendly reminder, of course.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Quote by Darage: Could be something bigger was revealed to him. Something bigger than a threat.

Like trade sanctions or boycotts? I wouldn't put it past Bush to strongarm in this way. His detractors are pointing out exactly how wrong he was on this, so he's got to keep as many allies as possible.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Quote by Darage: Could be something bigger was revealed to him. Something bigger than a threat.

Like trade sanctions or boycotts? I wouldn't put it past Bush to strongarm in this way. His detractors are pointing out exactly how wrong he was on this, so he's got to keep as many allies as possible.


no i wasn't thinking trade sanctions or boycotts, i was thinking something bigger than that. Such as an out of world threat, or a massive threat to the world that is going to happen soon, such as a cladera exploding and taking heaps of shiot out, or something BIG happening inthe world that it would be better for humanity, to keep the troops there. or something.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 12:06 PM
link   
If Bush had something like that he would use it, he needs the support internationally. If he fabricated WMD to do what he wanted to, why wouldn't he use a real threat to help his cause?



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Here's a thought:
Can anyone confirm that Bush 'threatened' or 'bullied' Pres. Kwasniewski?
Isn't Pres. Kwasniewski the same individual that basically told the EU to blow it concerning the EU Constitution? Poland has been a long-time supporter of the US and a strong supporter of the war on terror/terrorism.

Incentives maybe, "threatened" nah.
Threats are temporary to a nation and becoming meaningless in short order. Would a "threat" from Bush cause this to be said?
"President Kwasniewski confirmed our further involvement in the Iraqi mission and that we will be there as long as needed, plus one day longer......."

Highly doubtful, enlight of the past US/Polish relationship, no matter how many wish to twist the wording. Nothing more than a reaffirmation against this 'cancer' that plagues all of us. Bet.




seekerof



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
"President Kwasniewski confirmed our further involvement in the Iraqi mission and that we will be there as long as needed, plus one day longer......."
seekerof


Can make a bad Polish joke...must resist...must resist.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Quote by Seekerof: Incentives maybe, "threatened" nah.

Isn't bribe another word for incentive? And a threat need not be spoken to be issued. Maybe those "incentives" won't go their way without.......... see what I mean?



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   
It's possible he was blackmailed. The US was accused of being behind the bugging of UN offices of our allies leading up to the security council vote to authorize the invasion. Maybe Dubya's got some dirt on our Polish friend. I believe this administration would do something like that if it made Bush's re-election chances weaker. Which it would.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Intrepid....there is a significant definitive difference between the intent to bribe, blackmail, and an incentive.




seekerof

[Edited on 19-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Thanks everyone. Y'all bring up convincing possibilities. I agree Seekerof that Polish was in Support of the U.S. in going to war with Iraq. But changing your mind in one day? Something is fishy about that. I don't know what but I have this gut feeling about it. Remember how some of the Democrats who were running for President changed their views on certain subjects in the middle of the campaign? That's why I'm concerned abou this.

[Edited on 19-3-2004 by mrmulder]



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Blackmail is coersion. Bribe, incentive, while coersive, gives the recipient payment for whatever it is you want from them.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   
And that takes us back to square one intrepid....the confirmation of such uses is where, besides in conjectures?

Hey, don't get upset with me, I am frustrating this for a purpose. One, I am skeptical of what is being implied here and two, when trying to "read" into things, or events, we often lean from whats implied to what is not implied, guess work, possible educated guess, and ultimately to assumptions, all of which are unconfirmed conjectures.




seekerof

[Edited on 19-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Seeker, I am not upset at all. Without an exchange of ideas we would learn nothing. I think we can agree that we cannot trust what we hear from the media therefore we must challenge it, then gauge for ourselves what to believe. The more points of view the closer to the truth we get.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Well, anything that is said here is mainly conjecture. It's not like Bush is gonna do a press release of his phone conversation. So they coulda been talking about porn for all we know.

Though it is weird to say one thing, change your mind and after recieving a phone call from the president, you change your mind again. It just screams to be picked apart and looked at with the conspiracy sunglasses...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join