Talk:You forgot Poland

Polish participation

Actually Poland did participate in the initial invasion. According to some sources it was the elite Polish commando unit GROM that captured Umm Qasr, also another commando unit called Formoza took part in a number of operations though the details of those are still classified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.39.7 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 31 October 2004

They took part in March, but not in the March 20th invasion. See: http://www.polandembassy.org/News/Biuletyny_news/p2003-03-20.htm On the 20th, the troops hadn't left Poland yet. Ronabop 08:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Read that article again! And this time notice the sentance about "The sending of additional Polish troops to the Iraqi operation zone". Polish "regular" soldiers did not take part in the invasion, polish GROM commandoes did! The news about that fact, were released much later and were a subject of severe controversy why had the prime minister made such a decision without consulting the parlament. Mieciu K 00:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I interpreted that as the troops being sent "in addition" to the US and UK and AU forces, not a statement that GROM was already there, and troops (Formoza, etc.) were being sent "in addition" to existing polish GROM troops already on the ground. I certainly can see how it can be read both ways. Do you have any sources that indicate that GROM was on the ground, and part of the March 20th attack? I've only found sources that confirm GROM was involved as of the 23rd or 24th. My edits to Polish_contribution_to_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq would also have to be revised if we can find sources that the GROM troops were in action or part of the invasion forces of the 20th. Ronabop 06:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[1] According to this source (a web site of a military "Polish soldier" weekly magazine") on the 21 of march Donald Rumsfeld said" Jesteśmy szczególnie wdzięczni za bezpośrednie wojskowe zaangażowanie sił Wielkiej Brytanii, Australii i Polski oraz wielu innych krajów" (my polish -english translation) "We are particuraly grateful for the direct military engagement of the military forces of Great Britain, Australia and Poland". [2]] On the 23 of March the Polish state television aired a suprisingly enthusiastic statement by Donald Rumsfeld from the program NBC News „Meet the Press" : "Wraz z nami na polu walki są wojska australijskie, brytyjskie i polskie. Wykonują one cudowną robotę i kontrolują sytuację"(my polish -english translation) "Together with us on the field of battle, are the miliary forces of Austalia, Britain and Poland. They are doing a wonderful job and control the situation". Those are just clues, I will try to find more material on that topic (if possible in english), but finding direct proof of recent and "politicaly delicate" undercover operations can be difficult if not impossible. On the other hand, most Poles in 2003 were anti-war, have you ever heard of any Polish Military (or high ranking US military) official denying that Polish troops were a part of the march 20-th invasion? I haven't. Mieciu K 15:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Poltran.com translates the latter half of the first statement as "oraz wielu innych krajów" or "and many others countries" (I'm 3rd generation half-polish of immigrants to the US, so my polish sucks, my apologies). This leads me to believe that Rumsfeld was likely talking about *direct* military engagement in co-ordination, offers or planning of troops, logistics, etc., rather than *direct* engagement in combat (which happened with many countries after the initial invasion). To intepret it as direct combat would have meant that in the debates, G.W.Bush would have said something like "You forgot poland, spain, japan, and a great number of other countries that were part of the coalition", in which case, this would be a different wikipedia article. :-) As far as Rumsfeld stating that Poland was on the field of battle as of the 23rd, that would make sense, we have multiple sources for that. The key point being argued is about the 20th ("when we went in", according to Kerry), and I agree that if GROM is the kind of force I think they are, that information might be harder to find. (For example, it's assumed that the US may have had up to 250 SEAL troops *already* in Iraq before the invasion of the 20th, but covertly, with one copter going down on the night of the 19th.) As far assertions or denials about who went in on (and before) the 20th, 2003_invasion_of_Iraq has the info on the 20th for the brits, aussies, and amis (including special forces groups), but not poles. GROM is mentioned in the context of Umm Qasr, but the initial assualt there is credited to the 15th MEU and the 3rd Commando brigade (followed by GROM and the UK Royal marines on the 29th).

FWIW, I like the way you dealt with it on Polish_contribution_to_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq. We do know GROM was in the middle east, we do know they were working with SEALs. We don't have any data saying that "when we went in" (Kerry's words), GROM was part of the force that went in that day (or even before), as we have our first confirmed data of GROM engagement on the 23rd or 24th.. I've done lots of searching myself, but maybe it's best to tone down my statements (see last diff), in favor of leaving it an open question to be resolved. Ronabop 08:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture

why is the picture removed two times? Sure, it's a joke picture, but it's usefull as an example about the Internet humor about the quote. --Mixcoatl 01:18, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No idea, really. Halibutt 01:15, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it copyrighted? -- Kpalion 14:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

no --Mixcoatl 17:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Humour

I'm not an expert on American mentality, so I'd like to know -- and the article doesn't explain it -- why this quote is considered so funny. -- Kpalion 14:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Especially that, technically speaking, he did forgot Poland... But you know, everything related to that country is funny, no matter what. Halibutt 15:36, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Kpalion, you'd have to know how retarded Bush is.Cameron Nedland 00:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, it may have been a little silly, but it was a perfectly legitimate statement. Kerry did forget Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.196.162 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 19 April 2007

"But you know, everything related to that country is funny, no matter what."

How dare you insult my home country??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.179.88.247 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 16 November 2004

I suppose this was meant to be ironic so don't treat it as an insult, dear anon. -- Kpalion 15:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Besides, Halibutt is Polish himself. --Mixcoatl 15:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zgadza się, to miał być sarkazm. Cóż za ironia że zrozumieli to obcokrajowcy a nie swój... Tak czy siak - przepraszam za nieporozumienie. (translation for all those who do not speak Moorish: Indeed, it was meant to be sarcastic. Isn't it ironic that foreigners did catch that and one of ours didn't? Anyway - sorry for the misunderstanding). Halibutt 21:55, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Poles are very funny. Think about it, pole... hehe. Besides, they are good at invading. I can prove it, they've invaded irc@quakenet.org, so there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.241.169.5 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 21 September 2005

Whoever wrote this must be a complete asshole. There are too many people who are openly disrespectful and misunderstanding to other people simply because they can get away with saying these things in public. I see things differently, however, because I've seen bigots like this before.--Screwball23 ^talk 22:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Lets quit insulting Poland, it's not funny and it's rude.Cameron Nedland 13:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Explanation?

What on earth is that explanation doing there? It's funny because it alludes to Polack jokes? That just sounds like original research to me. I'm not American, and I found it funny without Polack jokes, because of the sheer absurdity of the contrast: Kerry mentions how few countries were in the coalition and how it shows a lack of international support, and Bush cleverly replies with "you forgot Poland" — not exactly a notable country in military terms. It has to be the most ineffective rebuttal ever. That's what made it funny for me, not some obscure allusion to an ethnic slur. I'd also wager far less people would have found it funny if they thought that was the case.

Don't explain jokes, unless you can source the explanation. Failing that, just accept that non-English visitors will have a hard time getting it. JRM 17:36, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

In American culture, "Polack" jokes are not an obscure allusion. In many American blogs, when talking about the "You forgot Poland" line, references (sometimes oblique) are made to "Polack" jokes. Google something like "forgot Poland", "Bush", and "joke" to find some of these. ("Polack" is not a great search term, since it's spelled variously, and the word is non-PC and thus sometimes avoided.) One of the better riffs off of the "You forgot Poland" line:

Q: What did the Polish say to George W. Bush?

A: Hey, even we're not dumb enough to stay in Iraq.[3]

"Polack" jokes, for better or worse, are part of the cultural context of "You forgot Poland", and leaving this out of the article leaves the reader less than adequately informed. However, my first pass at explaining this context does overstate the matter, so I'll have another go at it.--Kevin Myers 20:17, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Disputed factual accuracy.

I dispute that "many Americans believed that Poland was really not part of the invasion and that it was another laughable mistake by Bush" and would like to see some basis provided for this assertion. I can't speak for all Democrats but the ones I know that watched that debate knew full well that there were countries other than the US and the UK, simply that the contributions of the other countries (such as Poland) were insignificant (a handful of troops or a small amount of resources). The quote is not funny for the reason stated on the page. —Kelly Martin 21:04, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Many Americans thought and continue to think there are WMDs in Iraq. I think that's proof enough to assert the fact that nobody had any idea Poland was participating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.39.79 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 24 September 2005

I have never seen any evidence, whatsoever, to substantiate that Poland was actually part of the March 20th invasion force. This is why my prior edits reflected that Poland *was* part of the March invasion, but wasn't neccessarily part of the March 20th invasion. The timeline (IIRC) is as follows: March 17th, Poland announces that they will be sending troops. March 23rd, Polish troops report combat. So, in that period of days, (the invasion of the 20th, to 23rd) either Polish troops were (a) part of an invasion force that saw no combat, or (b) the polish forces didn't arrive until the 23rd, which is when they saw combat, but they weren't part of the March 20th invasion.

Does anybody have references to show that on the 20th, there were Polish troops on Iraqi soil? Ronabop 08:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

There's this (found in edit history, and still on the page) http://www.polandembassy.org/News/Biuletyny_news/p2003-03-20.htm which notes that troops hadn't even left poland yet on the 20th, and were due to leave on the 21st. Thus, they weren't part of the March 20th invasion forces, but were part of the March invasion forces. Ronabop 08:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Can we clean up the first paragraph? It has too much of a political viewpoint. The second one sticks to just the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.10.217 (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

200

That's why it struck many of us as an odd remark. Poland initially allocated 200 troops for the invasion, a number that didn't give the impression of a ringing endorsement. iMeowbot~Mw

So what is the true reason then? It seems to me that so many people found the quote funny, but everyone had a different reason for it. I tried to list some possible explanations which may be right or wrong (mind you, I'm not American and I don't find the quote funny myself):

1. Poland did not participate in the invasion on Iraq (which, in fact, is false).
2. Polish contribution to the invasion was insignificant.
3. Bush could have come up with a better rebuttal.
4. Bush doesn't really remember or care about Poland either.
5. Americans are so dumb.

Any other ideas?

(*) Although you could say that Bush did do his homework after Kwaśniewski told him a year ago that "especially before the election, there's millions and millions" of Polish-American voters.

– Kpalion (talk) 00:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Its ironical that this article was created by an user who also produced articles like that: Alfred J. Kwak :) So.. the answer could be nr 7? hmm... ;)--Emax 01:12, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Mixcoatl put himself on the list of Wikipedians from Old Europe so I guess you can't call him a dumb American. Besides, it doesn't matter who started the article, what matters is if it's factually accurate or not. – Kpalion (talk) 01:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Indeed I'm not an American. I don't know for sure why the quote is (considered) funny, but 2 and 5 seem the most logical options to me. --Mixcoatl 01:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would never call someone an American dumb (except the Democrats voters ;)). Mixcoatl Pls. revert your user page - the Alfred Kwak article is very interesting, really, until today i did not know that Henk was a mole, Dolf a nazi and that Kwak lives in a clog! :)--Emax 03:01, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Unless anyone has any clue as to how to establish which of these explanations is "factually accurate" (by being an American and stating which reason applied for you?), I suggest not explaining anything at all. The alternative is to add a lengthy, original research-y speculation piece on what reasons could apply. I don't like the sound of that. Can we, perchance, find sources in which people state exactly what was so funny about Bush's remark? Did this joke spread only on the Internet? If so, are the reasons for why still recorded? JRM 02:44, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

The reason I found it funny at first was that Kerry's point was to say that not many countries were in the coalition - and Bush expands his three countries to four, still a low number. I.e, even if Kerry included Poland his point would be the same. The humor is magnified by the fact that Poland doesn't exactly have the reputation of being a military superpower. It kind of surprises me that people don't get it, maybe you have to be an American news-junkie/blogger type? Eh. --Tothebarricades 01:15, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph a bit. Is it better now? – Kpalion (talk) 21:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He also forgot France's contributions to the war, that being the nifty white flags they sent over for the Iraqi soldiers. :P--Kross 11:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[As an American... I'd have to say there's a lot of evidence for the "Americans are so dumb" theory. Consider a recent poll suggesting that 60% of Americans want to teach Intelligent Design in their schools. Of course, those are the Republican voters. ;-] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.170 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 1 September 2005

I think this line neatly sums up the humor: "[People] found it funny because they believed it was an absurdly poor rebuttal which entirely missed Kerry's point ... his repartee's vocabulary lacked finesse as a rebuttal and seemed misplaced in a formal debate." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.246.233.232 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 12 September 2005

It is rather disheartening that a supposed "intelligent" discussion of whether or not this article is written with a NPOV has degenerated into "America bashing." Do you really think that "Americans are so dumb" is a valid argument? When discussing an article's disputed NPOV, please try to keep from adding to the ambiguity with extremely biased or bigoted comments of your own. Geddy 03:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

A political slogan?

Why does the article call it a political slogan? I don't think the Bush administration uses this quote to their advantage on meetings or poster... it is rather some Internet meme or just old beating-around-the-bush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purple Rose (talk • contribs) 18:16, 23 April 2005

Explaining my edits

Since this article was poorly sourced (which is to say, not at all), I put in some links and dates which should also help explain some of the social attraction to this meme. Specifically, that Poland was *not* part of the countries which had officially committed troops in the build-up to the war lasting several months, they were *not* part of the troops that began the invasion on March 20th, but they *were*, indeed, part of the March invasion, seeing combat action within 4 days after the invasion's beginning.

Hm. I suppose, in the interest of getting Kerry's words right, his statement should be corrected, as well. Ronabop 20:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See higher up on this page, we're sorting this out. Ronabop 08:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Witty? Not necessarily NPOV

"George Bush is known for his witty remarks" -- personally, I think GW is "known" for a lot of things, but I'm not sure "witty remarks" is one of them. This line sounds like an opinion to me and not very neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.196.137.218 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 25 April 2005

Agreed. It would seem to me that he's much more well known for putting his foot in his mouth. More a matter of being perceived as witless rather than witty. — NRen2k5 14:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

POV towards Anti-Polonism

I do not feel that there is any discrimination or bias in this remark. Bush is routinely criticized for his "forgetfullness" and being "dim-witted" among other things. This remark has no substansial evidence or follow-up remarks to suggest that he is against Poland in any manner. The references to Anti-Polonism should be removed. The only reason this article is notable, is what the politcal campaigners and media did in its following, which further proves that it was not Bush who made this a notable phrase and the POV that followed. WhoWho 9 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)

I agree, the Anti-Polonism references should go. According to our article on Anti-Polonism, it is " a term denoting hostility toward Poles, or more precisely an irrational or malicious hostility toward Poles as a nation or as a cultural community" - and You forgot Poland doesn't indicate to me at all that it fits that definition. -- Joolz 23:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a case of anti-Polonism, but I guess I understand why some people may feel so. "Forgetting Poland" means denigrating the Polish contribution to the war in Iraq, or even Poland as a whole. Of course, it's not Bush who seems to be anti-Polish, but rather Kerry, who forgot Poland, and even more so – all those who laugh at Bush's remark because they think that Poland didn't send troops to Iraq or that the Polish contribution was insignificant. For now, I've removed this article form the category Anti-Polonism but I left the link to Anti-Polonism here. Kinda compromise. – Kpalion (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

NO, the two of you are not sensitive enough to other countries. The statement was partly anti-Polonism and many Americans laughed at the "You forgot Poland" joke as one of insult to the Polish, calling them a ridiculous force in the war. This statement would be very insulting if used on another country, saying that a country's combined contribution was not good enough but in America, anti-Polonism is so strong that the article is highly biased against Poland. By linking the pages to political humor and Bushism, the Wikipedian who wrote this article is directly suggesting that Poles are pro-Bush and that the Polish force is one for humor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwball23 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 14 October 2005

I'm American and I'd say that if you talk with the average American, regardless of political ideology, about Poland's contribution to the war in Iraq, they'd probably ask how many horses they lost charging the Iraqi tanks. I don't think Americans are anti-Polish, but I figure we have a lot more love for them than we do respect.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.117.30 (talk • contribs) 12:28, December 1, 2005 (UTC)

Which BTW is fine example of effectiveness of Nazi propagand for 60 years after war. 60 years and peoplpe still believe that Polish cavalry charged on purpose tanks. Szopen 18:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"A 'Grand Coalition' is a farcical statement", not "Poland's military is laughable"

I don't know how many people interpreted this an an insult to Poland, but that's not why most people considered it funny. I don't know how many people here were actually watching Unites States tv shows and such making fun of it at the time, but the point of the joke is "Haha, Bush falsly claimed that he put together a Grand Coalition of over 40 nations" when most are in fact countries like Costa Rica or Micronesia or Mongolia, who sent an insignificant number of troops (given that the USA has over 100,000 troops on the ground, lets' say anything below 1,000-500 is "not significant", comparatively speaking). ---->No one's making fun of Poland. I mean, it would have been more or less the same effect if he had said "well, you forgot Italy". Italy even had about 1,500 troops there. The point is, Kerry said "we don't have "40 nations", you've got just three nations INCLUDING the USA that have strong militaries that are actually lending support, most of the other 37 are Mongolia or AFGHANISTAN" and Bush's reply was "Nooo, I've got FOUR, FOUR nations out of Forty that have large troop numbers there!". EITHER WAY, Bush made his own statement that he had a "large 40 nation plus coalition" appear farcically wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.153.182 (talk • contribs) 130.64.153.182

What does this statement have to do with "you forgot Poland" Drew1369 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt this ranks up with "All men are created equal"

I agree that this should be deleted. It really doesn't matter where you stand politically to realize that this is not that important of a statement. The rest are of some significance to history, while this is better suited in the internet meme section. Minidoxigirli 04:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'll just remove it from the 'Political slogans' category.Minidoxigirli 06:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

how?

how is the world is this worthy of an encyclopedia article? 71.62.10.130 10:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I Saw Poland Betrayed and Western betrayal

These have nothing to do with this article. I'm deleting the links.--Quincybuddha 02:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging idea

After thinking about it for two days, I still think this would be better served in one paragraph at Bushism. Agree? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see your remark before, for some reason. "You forgot Poland" isn't really a Bushism, which is necessarily a gaffe. It's just something funny that Bush said. Its notability stems from its being an Internet meme. This article has survived one AFD. I'm reverting your redirect merge. Robert K S 08:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Right after I did this too. Anyways, if this not a Bushism, then I will need to see what it could into. I am trying to go for a merge, because of the last AFD, but I am wondering if you could suggest where it could go. Having an AFD round 2 is something I wish to avoid unless that is my only option. I just don't feel like we should have an article on an internet meme/gaffe that had it's shelf-life in 2004 for about a few weeks. We already got rid of articles of even the newest memes, like over 9000. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a very well known and popular phrase. Certainly if there is no "as clear as boston harbor" or "well, there you go again" phrase, this doesn't belong in wikipedia as an article of its own. But there is a list of political catchphrases and this would fit in perfectly there. 76.250.168.149Anonymous Coward —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There is already a section of the Polish involvement...article that has a paragraph of this article. Can I redirect there, assuming I merge the cites and stuff? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of reverting me, can I at least get some kind of response here? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am happy with the compromise. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion of the accuracy of the statement isn't in the article you mentioned. It isn't just an internet meme. It was a significant event during the election that was interpreted differently by both sides and it deserves discussion and the information about the incident should be preserved. Previous nomination for deletion was defeated. Nominate it again if you like, but don't just delete it please. Gripdamage (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was a flash in the pan meme that only lasted for a few weeks. Honestly, as I said before, the article that it links to already covers this enough. We don't have any articles on the current memes now and it is hard to have an article on memes. The information isn't deleted and AFD's are not required for merges. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't merged anything. You just replaced this article with a redirect after AFD failed. Then instead of discussing it further you just did it again. I don't feel it covers it enough. I came looking for this article because I could remember the entire context of the issue and I remembered reading this before, and I was surprised to find it gone. One sentence does not properly replace the two paragraphs. You seem to be deleting the article and trying to call it a merge without actually merging anything. Do you dispute that you haven't actually merged anything? Facts like "Poland's level of involvement in the Iraq war at the time of Bush's statement later became a subject of debate." are not represented at all. That detractors felt the comment was petty, also not represented. In fact I might as well just paste the whole article here minus the phrase "internet meme" since none of it seems to have made the transition what you are calling a "merge". Gripdamage (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The AFD occurred in Sept of 2006, what I have done was in October and December of 2007, so it wasn't right after an MFD. I can try and put more text in the target article, but I have no clue if it is going to stay or not. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

As there is an active discussion here about a proposed merger (see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers), I added the {{merge}} template to the top of the article: it's purpose is to direct editors to the discussion in the Talk:You forgot Poland#Merging idea section above.

I hope this helps. — Athaenara ✉ 06:24 & 23:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It does. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd vote 'no merge', as I think it is a relatively important meme / catch phrase (35k non-Wikipedia Google hits). PS. Also, a former AfD was keep. I'd suggest that we try another one and see if the consensus is merge this time.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be merged. It looks below the threshold for notability. It's almost entirely uncited; you'd think that if it had any significant notability there would at least be some sourcing. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge Means something besides delete this page and leave the other page exactly the same right? I have no trouble with a merge if it's actually merged. I'm fine with keeping it right here too if no one wants to do the work of an actual merge at this time. Gripdamage (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge means that some information from here is placed at the target article. I got some information from the second paragraph already at the article, and pretty much over half of the first paragraph there. I went ahead and did the merge, but waiting to perform the redirect. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The second section actually strikes me as covering up something. The date that Polish troops hit the ground is not the day that the invasion began. It says they participated in the invasion, but Wikipedia seems to call March 1 the invasion, and anything after part of the Iraq War. Even letting that go, Kerry explicitly says "when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States.". This is true. According to Wikipedia, Poland didn't announce they would participate until more than two weeks later. He didn't forget Poland. We didn't "go in" with Poland. Why is this left vague to paraphrase: oh there was some controversy about dates. I don't see any controversy. It looks pretty straightforward. What Kerry said is true, which makes what Bush said appear to be incorrect. Am I missing something? 159.140.254.10 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally do not know of the war timelime, but I knew other countries began to pour troops in weeks after the main landing force hit Iraq. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Just looked again. I misread somehow: March 20th to May 1st is the invasion. They announced on March 17th they'd join us, so even if they weren't on the ground March 20th they were already committed to being there. I highly doubt that effected our start time though. We were in it with them or without them. Still they were committed when we actually invaded, so there is an argument he forgot Poland. How important it is is up to the reader. I think that exact unfolding of events is missing though, which would have kept me from being confused. I'll look the references available and add something to the other article more specific about the time line unless someone beats me to it. i.e. Poland committed a few days before the invasion and did not have troops on the ground on the first day of the invasion. I'm not apologetic for Kerry, but we should say exactly what he forgot. Gripdamage (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually voted for Kerry. Anyways, the focus of the article here wasn't much about what he forgot, just he forgot Poland. It feels like anything will become a meme, already seeing stuff from Kosovo that creeping into articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the merge. The info looks fine in the "Polish invovement" article, and the topic isn't notable enough to be its own article. At any rate, is it not time the debate was closed one way or the other? Scolaire (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to close it, go right ahead. The information is already merged, so just place a redirect and we are done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)