Quote:
Originally posted by warlock667
That list I gave ranged from: direct military participation, logistical and intelligence support, specialized chemical/biological response teams, over-flight rights, humanitarian and reconstruction aid, to political support.
So whether it's supporting OR participating that you want to use, they are still on our side!
|
lol. it was a token contribution by a couple of nations that matter ie japan who had their soldiers mainly away from the action in safe areas, and "moral" support from nations either propped up and dependant on by US aid, or trying to negotiate other benefits for their support, mostly WITHOUT the support of the actual population themselves.
how did the marshall and soloman islands help? lol. That list is a who's who of countries that dont matter but make great copy when Karl can get the president to say "with the coalition of 35 countries".
Even Australia who needed bargaining power with the free trade act negotiations and would have their wheat trade with Iraq in jeopardy from US companies sent only a symbolic amount of soldiers.
Militarily the US did not need ANY of the other coalition members aside from perhaps the UK. It just needed several countries to send in 500 soldiers each against the US's 130,000 to be able to say you weren't there alone, almost on a technicality. Which is FAR more important than their respective contributions.
if Iraqi non US/UK "coalition" was a milk it would be advertised as 98% fat free.
and the 2% left in are there for just that reason aid dependancy, trade and so on.