fiddy :glugglug

I think Bush might have misunderestimated the Iraqies :1orglaugh

Counting Israel and Saudi Arabia 13 of the top 20 nations in the world by military expenditures were in the "coalition of the willing". Powerful nations indeed.

Maybe you have an Anglo-Saxon prejudice.

I didn't know Israel was in the " coalition " :warning

This should illustrate pretty well my saying:

Troop Contingents in Iraq by Country of Origin: March 2004



Iraq Troop numbers March 2004

Country ,,, Troops Per 100000 population ,, Per 1000 military

1 USA 130,000 47.7 94.8
2 United Kingdom 9,000 15.2 42.4
3 Italy 3,000 5.3 11.3
4 Poland 2,460 6.7 10.2
5 Ukraine 1,600 3.2 5.1
6 Spain * 1,300 3.3 7.0
7 Netherlands 1,100 7.0 19.5
8 Australia 800 4.3 14.5
9 Romania 700 3.1 3.4
10 Bulgaria 480 5.9 5.9

11 Thailand 440 0.7 1.4
12 Denmark 420 7.8 17.3
13 Honduras * 368 6.1 5.4
14 El Salvador 361 6.2 14.7
15 Dominican Republic 302 3.7 12.3
16 Hungary 300 2.9 6.9
17 Japan 240 0.2 1.0
18 Norway 179 4.0 5.8
19 Mongolia 160 6.1 17.6
20 Azerbaijan 150 1.9 2.1
21 Portugal 128 1.3 2.6
22 Latvia 120 5.1 20.9
23 Lithuania 118 3.3 9.7
24 Slovakia 102 1.9 2.3
25 Czech Republic 80 0.8 1.4
26 Philippines 80 0.1 0.7
27 Albania 70 2.1 7.0 **
28 Georgia 70 1.4 2.7
29 New Zealand 61 1.7 6.4
30 Moldova 50 1.1 4.7
31 Macedonia 37 1.8 2.3
32 Estonia 31 2.2 6.5
33 Canada ^ 31^
34 Kazakhstan 25 0.1 0.4
Sources: The Australian, 17th March 2004. SBS World Guide, ninth edition, 2001.


Sorry, I was wrong when I stated that the US had 90% of ther troops.. they in fact have 94.8 % ... Major contributor to such a vast " coalition"....

It doesn't illustrate or support your point at all. You said that "The whole world is blind, aside from the US and UK...." implying that the whole world was against the US and UK when in fact there are 45 countries representing a sizable percentage of the world's power that signed onto the coalition. If you want to change the question as to which nations sent how many troops, then fine. How many troops did France, Germany and China send to defend Iraq? That's what I thought. They opposed just by saying so, not by sending troops.

As far as Israel. We all know Israel is in support but is being kept off the list for political reasons.

Interesting stats.

Something had to happen with Iraq. The no fly zone crap couldn't go on forever. What would Al Gore of done?

Where did I say that ? I will not add the power of Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Estonia and others of the same to compare to Russia, China, France, Germany and Canada.... I have work to do, new server to setup.

I capitulate, just like the UN , France, Germany, ... did: your mind is already made.

Long live to the war!

The UN?? The UN didn't pass any resolutions against the invasion.

Russia, China, France, Germany and Canada vs. the US, UK, Japan, Spain, and Australia. I'll take your money.

Most likely yes.....

You cooked the numbers. There were over 40,000 British troops in the initial invasion.

cUT AND PASTE.

http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html#list3

Yeah, I know. Just that those numbers are from March, 2004 and don't have anything to do with the initial war phase.

I NEVER STATED THAT THESE NUMBERS WERE FROM INITIAL OR 2003.

How about backing up your 40,000 UK troops ????

Yes, but as I remember it, the UN Security Council did not lend their support for the invasion either. That is a major reason Canada and other countries stayed out.


Quote - Adam Segal and Erik Missio, CBC News Online
April 11, 2003 :

"Hours after U.S. President George W. Bush abandoned the UN Security Council saying the U.S. was prepared to launch a strike against Iraq, Canada condemned Washington's move. If military action proceeds without a new resolution of the Security Council, Canada will not participate," Prime Minister Jean Chrétien told the House of Commons to much acclaim. "

Sigh. Memory failing you? This just happened. *laughing*

"The UK has about 8,700 soldiers in Iraq, down from about 40,000 during the war."

Source: BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3628959.stm

Right, the UN Security Council neither condemned nor approved action. Exactly my point. Traditionally a resolution will be proposed condemning an action if there are nations that feel that strongly about it. Direct Fiesta cannot, with a straight face, include the UN as "opposed to the US". That's ludicrous and impossible.

40, 000 down to 8700 ... Spain gone, Honduras gone....

What is funny is when you do search and find articles from 2003... They all now read as false and lies... Just read some statments today of the 9/11 commission and you still have Bartlett of the US gov stating that Iraq is involved in 9/11... sick.

No, I can't :1orglaugh

UN opposes US resolution for Iraq

Really can't .... lol

Journalists. To be factual it should have said "Some members of The UN Security Council were today unmoved by a US draft resolution".

The security council acts through resolutions. Which resolution opposed the action? None.

directfiesta,

Don't you know that no resolution can pass in the UN without US approval? In that regard, the UN is almost a puppet organization of the 5 permanent members.

More shitty journalists .... :1orglaugh Damm Freedom of the Press... Let's look at this at the next re-write of the Patriot Act, vol.58 ....


That should clear up all the americans " crying" : boohoohooo, they shot at our planes.... bad, bad Iraqis...

:1orglaugh

Absolutely! This is why Israel is ALWAYS off the hook!

Revised: not exactly, because if the US would abstain....


Same is true for each member of the council. This is why Georgie didn't go back with a war resolution to the UN.

Oh, I agree with you. That whole "no fly zone" defense is idiocy.

Now you know I like the UN so much. It supports the existing power structure of the world.

the iraqs are not like american in the fact the more we help them.. the more they hate us.. we can never win..

Seems that applies to Saudis also ....

So, the war in Iraq wasnt over in a few days?

Reminds me of a great quote by Rochefoucauld. "Past favors are never forgiven".

Funny, I don't remember Gore, the Clintons, Kerry, or John Howard exploiting 9/11 to scare the people into believing lies about Iraq, and then invading them based on these lies. For someone who went to Yale you seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between not being sure what WMD Saddam may have and wanting to find out, and what Bush did, which is TELL US what WMD Saddam had, TELL US he was connected to Bin Laden, TELL US he was a threat to the USA, and then launch a first strike invasion in a poorly organized way, torturing pig farmers by the thousand along the way. Bush is always very sure of himself until the truth comes out.

Maybe I fell asleep for a while and missed Clinton make up shit on the spot about a 911/Hussein connection, but I doubt it.

Yes, that's the problem, you're helping too much. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Come on, how could you doubt this face...

http://www.wlu.ca/~wwwpa/campus_upda...ges/martin.jpg


:Graucho

Actually it's nothing like that, nice reference though. Those were troops from a beaten occupying force grouping together to attack the liberators. This is a population that has been broken by a year long invasion, and it's common citizens fighting back against the occupying force. As much as right wingers would love for this to be like WWII in any way, it's not, it's fucking Vietnam.

So you know the people fighting you every day aren't "terrorists" or "insurgents", they're farmers who haven't had water or electricity for a year.

we are just all caught up in a rich mans war.

Rich,

You are the least careful reader I have ever known and once again - even though you bore me - will show you how much of a complete moron you are in front of the GFY audience.

The posts in this thread were about the
evidence as to whether Saddam had WMDs or not. Not once did I mention a connection between 9/11 and Saddam nor have I ever.

Now, ignoring the whole 9-11 connection which is ridiculous, let's get back to WMDs Clinton did mention Iraqi WMDs when he bombed Baghdad back in 1998. Here's the link:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/16/iraq.strike.03/

And I quote:

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said from the Oval Office. Clinton said he decided weeks ago to give Hussein one last chance to cooperate. But he said U.N. chief weapons inspector Richard Butler reported that Iraq had failed to cooperate -- and had in fact placed new restrictions on weapons inspectors."

And John Kerry in 2002 said, and I quote "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security"

Now you say I have a "hard time understanding the difference between not being sure what WMD Saddam may have and wanting to find out" and you use this to counterdict my statement that people like Kerry also believed that Iraqi had WMD. Now using the infinite wisdom gained from your 3 college degrees, please tell me what Kerry meant when he said "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security".

It's no Vietnam. This occupation would have to go on for more than half a century to get to those kind of casualty numbers. I can only guess that you know very litttle of Vietnam much less know the difference between 50,000 and 900. Iraq is a lot more like the Phillipines.

You have a few small groups being led by clerics who think they are doing the work of Mohammed. That's all.

Colin your oversimplification of everything is laughable. Yes you're right, it is Bill Clinton and John Kerry's fault we're in Iraq right now, they would have done the same thing. Wake the fuck up, Bush made a huge fucking mistake invading Iraq.


Yes, it's ridiculous to talk about the main reason the American people were snowed into supporting the unnecessary war we're talking about.

So Al-Sadr's Al-Mahdi militia are a bunch of farmers without water? Hahaha.

I'll just quote that for the record.

Where am I discussing "fault"? Where am I discussing "what Clinton would do"?

It's funny. As always, every post you make in reply to me is an attempt to change the subject from the one where you were just proved wrong. I've seen this from you since day one. Don't you know you just keep making yourself a target? Sooner or later you'll learn you can't beat me.

Now, please don't make me explain myself line by line to you just to clarify. Do us both a favor. Go back and read my posts 4 times each, read them slowly, and then come back and continue the debate. Until then, you're wasting the time of people who are literate.

You're worse than the highschoolers I used to teach.

I don't think so !

And I'll beat you this with one.

Here's where we are.

Vietnam. Total dead. 58,203
Iraq. US casualties. 837.

At this month's casualty rate, US casualties in Iraq will equal Vietnam in the year 2102. See the difference?

Just because you say you "beat me" doesn't make it true. Go back and find one thing you've said that isn't rhetoric trying to change the subject from YOUR MISTAKEN SUPPORT of an illegal war, and failure to admit as much. Don't make me explain line by line why when jackasses like yourself and 12clicks spit out a bunch of BS, the rest of the world laughs.

Keep quoting Clinton and Kerry on WMD, very relevant since they were the ones who exaggerated the facts and launched the war. Tell me that's not something a highschooler would do and I'll call you a liar. You Bush apologists are very full of talking points, but sadly they don't hold up outside of CNN.

Hate to break this to you, but most people look at a war as more than US casualties. How old are you? If you can't understand how this is a replay of Vietnam, well let's just say that explains a lot of your thought process.

Heh. I tell you to "go back and read my posts" and then you copy with "go back and find one thing you've said". You're in obvious awe of me and trying to emulate. Give it up. Be yourself. You need to develop your own style. Don't be a plagiarist. It's unbecoming.

The excellent and respected military historian John Keegan wrote this recently, "Iraq 2004 is not Greece 1945, not Indochina 1946-54, not Algeria 1953-62 and certainly not "Vietnam". "

In his words, "the war has not done much harm but has broken the power of the state and encouraged the dispossessed and the irresponsible to grab what they can before order is fully restored. What monopolises the headlines and prime time television at the moment is news from Iraq on the activity of small, localised minorities struggling to entrench themselves before full peace is imposed and an effective state structure is restored. The news is, in fact, very repetitive: disorder in Najaf and Fallujah, misbehaviour by a tiny handful of US Army reservists - not properly trained regular soldiers - in one prison. There is nothing from Iraq's other 8,000 towns and villages, nothing from Kurdistan, where complete peace prevails, very little from Basra, where British forces are on good terms with the residents."

What has caused the insurgency, and it is that, at the hand of a few clerics - was a lightning-quick campaign that occupied a capital in just 21 days without destroying much of the Iraqi munitions. It did not leave most Iraqis feeling defeated, certainly not the militias in Najaf and Fallujah. This combined with the police and military apparatus being disbanded has permitted a criminal element to appear.
It is localized to a few cities and organized by just a few clerics.

Now do you see the difference?

I love it when the right wing argues, "Look at all the other countries that support the war!"

Just what exactly is "support"? "The Cayman Isalnds supports the war." from it's Prime Minister. Maybe it sends a few coconuts and some band aids to the "cause.

But in the end, it is the United States that has poured in over 95% of the money, men & material in this material. In reality, it's a one country war with some token help from it's lacked Britain.

When all American troops (and the rest of the "coalition") go home and Iraq is a stable democracy!

Damn right! Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, etc. These "45" countries have only offered TOKEN help in their "support" and are but a SMALL % of the rest of the world's population.

Are there Israeli & Saudi troops fighting in Iraq?
This argument your pushing about "45" countries supporting the war is so full of holes it's laughable.

Ok..you are a stickler for facts, just what is the actual % of the world population represented by these 45 countries (REMOVING the poplulation of the US)??