The idiot is now on TV with a bunch of military as a background.

he just said that he attacked Iraq because they were a threat ...????

And that it was a regime based on torture... Amazing how you can bring sheeps to the slaughterhouse....

Direct Fiesta. Why are you ignoring a good question?

I hear you ...

@directfiesta

A lot of contries besides US and UK do have troops in Iraq (we do for sure), so let's get away from the US/UK vs the WORLD perspective. Also, I don't see anyone who's by Saddam's side in this issue.

Having Breakfast....

Lets not kid ourselves with the " coalition of the willing " ....The best way to measure the success of that coalition ( or its legitimacy) is to evaluate:

- from which countries come the soldiers
- from which countries comes the money

We all know that the soldiers are 90% US, 7% Britts and 3% for the rest of the 40 or so countries. Already, countries have pulled out their troops. Other countries ( such as Australia, Italy) are under heavy pressure to do so from their population. Most of the EX-Soviet countries ( Hungary, Poland, etc...) are there on paper mainly, in exchange for commercial benefit, such as US aid of various sort... I already posted links to that effect, but I really don't think you need them as I consider you as an educated person.

On the money subject, we saw couintries balking out one after the other when it was time to steup up to the plate... The first Gulf War cost was paid at 90% by other countries, 10% by the US.
10% only of 60 billion : 8 billion....

I can go today on the streets here to get a petition signed that we will invade Mars.... I can get most homeless to sign it for a dime, and most intellectually challenged to do so with a nice compliment such as " you are so bright"...

The coalition countries represents a minority of the world population and of the economic power.

Ifg Bush could say l;ike you that he made a mistake or misjudged the situation, there would be hope. But at this very instant, he is again spitting out the same lies as he did yesterday and the day before... Very sad.



:2 cents:

And if this happens in the Straights of Taiwan?

from a few minutes ago:

Lies from Dick Cheney, repeated and repeated till the americans beleive it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3812351.stm


These are the lies that TheKing can't understand.

I think China is the one most in need of liberating.......

no comments needed.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...afp203body.jpg

45 countries supported the US position before the war. So let me get this right, you think a country like Romania shouldn't count because it has a small population and is not an economic power? What you are saying essentially is that "might is right"? France matters more than Poland?
Germany matters more than Hungary? Interesting.

Stupid position, right???

That is why the UN permanent security council includes Romania, Latvia, Kurdistan, Shithole and dontblinkcauseyouwontseeme....

Please, get real. The coalition, aside from a few anglo-saxon countries, looks like a list of beggars!

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