45 countries supporting usa?
 

nice list of countries
from news.com.au

45 countries with us, says US
From correspondents in Washington
March 19, 2003

SECRETARY of State Colin Powell has said 45 nations are backing the United States in the coalition that may soon go to war with Iraq.

Powell said 30 of those countries - who had offered troops, overflight rights, logistical support and assistance and Iraqi reconstruction projects - were willing to be named publicly, while 15 preferred to remain anonymous for the present.

"Thirty nations have publicly said they can be included," he said in a State Department interview with international news agencies. The 15 others "will be known in due course".

The department later released a list of the countries that it said were included in what it called the "Coalition for the Immediate Disarmament of Iraq".

Those countries include: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Britain, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey and Uzbekistan.

I think our goverment was the first to promise support - I am afraid of Saddam payback a little bit.
Also I think we have enough of our problems here so I can't see a reason why to take a part in this :mad:

the anti war crowd insists we are still acting alone though.



axis of weasel
----------------------
france
germany
canada
china
russia

:sadcrying :helpme

:glugglug

we insist you're going in without UN support. last i checked that was correct...

I see... 14 of those 45 countries seems extremely powerful!

Afghanistan
Albania
Azerbaijan
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Nicaragua
the Philippines
Uzbekistan

:glugglug

i am anti war. my point is how many countries are there in the world. and look at this list. i havent heard of one of those countries. and afghanistan and ethiopia and the likes are a really great addition to the battle field. lol. what a joke.

1441 was made and signed by the UN. 1441 authorizes use of force. End of discussion.

some say it does, others say it doesn't...

Fucking funny! Portugal supports the US (at least the government....) and it's not on the list. I guess we are that small.

As for the UN. We didn't have UN backing in Grenada, Panama, Vietnam.

The UN did nothing in Bosnia and Rwanda where an estimated 800,000 people were slaughtered.

Its a spineless debating society. And the anti war crowd pointing to the opposition of weasels like France and Russia looking out for their own economic interests as grounds of declaring it an 'illegal war' are idiotic.

Since I am one of the few here with a background in International Political Theory, I would like to clarify a few points.

1) The United States can act only in its own defense. Although this isn't the best argument the USA can make, it is none the less acceptable and allowed by the UN Charter.

2) The UN Security Council has passed 17 prior resolutions which under international law can be considered binding. Since the government of Iraq was held in material breach of previous resolutoins at the instance of resolution 1441, the Security and/or members can act on the initial cease fire argeement of the soon to be first Gulf War. No need for an additional resolution is necessary since Iraq was a signatory to the cease fire argeement.

3) It was Iraq's responsibility alone to prove that it was in compliance and not the previous two UN inspection regimes. This point was also a part of the cease fire argeement. The United States was made agent of the cease fire argeement. That means the U.S. was empowered by the UN to act on its behalf during the execution of military action and principle party in the negotiation of surrender.


Those against US action now are simply expressing sour grapes. I haven't seen a single person express Saddam's innocence here. We all know he is guilty of crimes against his people and the 4 countries he has attacked (Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, and Iran).

What is the problem then? People simply don't like the fact it is the US that has to do the job. Without the USA, there is NO standing army nor coalition on Earth that could field the necessary strength to do justice.

The United States does have UN backing and has 17 resolutions to prove it.

our country is also very helfull (CZech rep.):1orglaugh
I think we don't even use machineguns - we have peacemakers from 1895:thumbsup

You forgot to add France :girl :Graucho

You haven't heard of the countries on that list? I find that hard to believe, but if it is the case you't be very well educated. Which probably explains why you are anti-war.

Well put! :thumbsup

"1441 was made and signed by the UN. 1441 authorizes use of force. End of discussion."

... no, it does not.

i will agree with you, the UN hasn't acted like it should. its hypocritical of americans to think iraq should comply with the UN when the states don't comply with the UN.

changes need to be made at the UN so that decision makers aren't pressured into not taking the appropriate actions.

nice read... spotted elsewhere:

------
For people with short memories:

1998

October 31 -- Iraq cuts off all work by U.N. monitors. The United
States and Great Britain warn of possible military strikes to force
compliance. A renewed military build-up in the Persian Gulf begins.

November 5 -- The U.N. Security Council condemns Iraq for violating
agreements signed after the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

November 11 -- The United Nations withdraws most of its staff from
Iraq.

November 14 -- With B-52 bombers in the air and within about 20
minutes of attack, Saddam Hussein agrees to allow U.N. monitors back
in. The bombers are recalled before an attack occurs. Weapons
inspectors return to Iraq a few days later.

December 8 -- Chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler reports that
Iraq is still impeding inspections. U.N. teams begin departing Iraq.

December 15 -- A formal U.N. report accuses Iraq of a repeated pattern
of obstructing weapons inspections by not allowing access to records
and inspections sites, and by moving equipment records and equipment
from one to site another.

December 16 -- The United States and Great Britain begin a massive air
campaign against key military targets in Iraq.

President Clinton ordered air strikes Dec. 16 against Iraq's
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its
military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Warships and combat
aircraft began bombarding the defiant Gulf state at 5 p.m. EST -
- 1 a.m. in Baghdad, the Iraqi capital.

Quotes from Clinton:

"The international community gave Saddam one last chance to
resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors," Clinton said.
"Saddam has failed to seize the chance. So we had to act and act
now."

Wow, that almost sounds like...GEE DUBYA! on 1441!

He (Clinton) said the attack was designed to protect the national
interests of the United States and the interests of people throughout
the Middle East and around the world.

Preemptively?

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or
the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,"
Clinton said. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against
his neighbors and his own people, he said, and "left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

Butler's conclusions, Clinton said, proved to be "stark,
sobering and profoundly disturbing." Instead of living up to its
agreement, he said, "Iraq has abused its final chance."

But now (2003), for some reason, Clinton wants to give Saddam another
chance...

Butler's report concluded Iraq has ensured U.N. inspectors could
make no progress toward disarmament. Even if the inspectors
could stay in Iraq, Clinton said, THEIR WORK WOULD BE A SHAM.
"Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness," he said.
"Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, the Iraqi dictator
has disarmed the inspectors."

Clinton said he and his national security advisers agreed that
Hussein presented a clear and present danger to the stability of
the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. He said he
deemed military action necessary to prove the international
community, led by the United States, had not lost its will.
Failure to act, Clinton said, would have "fatally undercut the
fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination
in the region."

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he
threatens
the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of
the world." --Bill Clinton

"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are
never
eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests,
we will do so." --Bill Clinton (man, Bush should HIRE this guy!)

For those who think this was only a small bombing campaign...

*US forces fired 400 cruise missiles and dropped 600 precision-guided
bombs. These munitions alone cost US taxpayers $1.1 billion. The
Pentagon claims 85% hit their targets, which is likely true.

*Main targets: airfields; factories producing permitted short-ranged
tactical missiles; gaudy presidential palaces; TV stations; an oil
refinery; AA defenses; command and control centers; office buildings;
Republican Guard barracks.

*The British, scorned by Iraq as `America's attack poodle,' claimed to
have destroyed a hanger filled with `Saddam's drones of death.'

*Iraq kicked out for good (or at least until Bush wanted to go to war)
vexing US-run arms inspectors.

*The US Joint Chiefs of Staff, the weakest and least competent
collection of political generals seen in many decades, dutifully
seconded the draft-dodging president's victory claims. Shastaman,
however, maintained that nothing was accomplished, and we would face
the same problem again a few years later.
------

Thread killer ^^^

Well, notice where it says "reconstruction projects". Sure, there are a lot of countries that will help the ppl on Iraq recover from being bombed to hell. A lot of countries will say they will help rebuild a country, but there are only 3-4 supplying troops.
ZoiNk

Well...since "serious consequences" can be defined as the use of military force (among many other definitions), yes it does. In addition there are at least two other resolutions that allow for the use of military force.

You're kidding me right? What are they going to drop starving children from a B52 to eat Iraq?

You can remove 'The Netherlands' from the list, they are not going to help with shooting and everything, only with some hints and tips, nothing more.

And some hot teens maybe :Graucho