Some, including the Spanish, have already gone - now the Italians, Dutch and Ukranians are abandoning Iraq.
Regardless of whether these nations supported the original war, there is now a serious security problem in Iraq - a problem coalition nations committed themselves to help rectify.
How can these countries - and I’m talking about the populations who are putting pressure on their leaders to back away - support a withdrawal with any kind of pride when they know the job has not been done and others will have to do that job for them?
I don’t see it simply as not wanting to be involved in an “American” operation, although in the case of Italy that may have some merit what with their man being killed by US troops, but more as having little stomach for the struggle.
How is the operation being played in the media in the dissenter nations?
Are they happy for others to do the dirty work or do they think there is no work to be done? That Iraq will do just fine if all foreign troops were to leave tomorrow (which may well be the case but it seems unlikely to me)?
:dubious: Maybe they’re having doubts – perfectly legitimate doubts – as to whether what you describe as “the job” is actually the right thing to do in this situation – and as to whether “the job,” regardless of its intrinsic value, is something their governments have any right to do in another country.
My understanding is that the war is unpopular in every nation, except the US.
This was the deal: Iraq has WMD, or, the US are worthless lying sons of bitches, every motherloving son of them.
Well we know how that turned out. Having been shat all over by the US, why should anybody stick their neck out.
That’s about the sum of it.
Quite. You broke it, you fix it.
Because it’s way past the point where it’s about the US, Bush or whatever. This is about the Iraqi people. The only defensible argument for any single nation to pull out now is if you think Iraq would be better off if all foreign troops were pulled immediately. Withdrawing with the implicit assumption that necessary work is not being done or other nations will simply have to pick up the slack is cowardly and immoral.
So why doesn’t that apply when it comes to cleaning up the post-colonial messes in Africa?
I don´t see the US doing much to solve Africa´s post colonial problems, why would Europe had to help fix USA´s Iraqi problems?
Reality check. It’s not about the Iraqi people, it’s about elections - while it was an economically sound decision to back the wishes of the USA against the will of the people of one’s own country, this is a foolish thing to do when elections are due.
As a politician you want to be reelected and thus you need to take heed not to annoy too many voters.
Appealing to the morality of the crowd who started or supported a war for dubious reasons is quite amusing.
Reality check? You mean paranoia enhancement?
In any case. This thread is not specifically about Italy. The message I replied to was not specifically about Italy. My post was not specifically about Italy. And the Cowards ^M^M^M^M Spaniards, didn’t withdraw when elections were due, but after. Neither was the Ukrainians decision caused by the election. And I’m not appealing to anybody, just stating my personal opinion. Anything else you want to misunderstand, feel free to give it a go.
President Bush said he wasn’t relying on treaties or the UN Charter to set up the team. It was a “coalition of the willing.” That to my mind suggests that as soon as you’re not willing, you’ve fulfilled your obligation.
Politicians in these various countries are starting to discover that they personally may have been willing, but their people weren’t - and their people are starting to express that opinion politically. I read it more as an illustration of the principle that democratic leaders shouldn’t take their countries to war unless there is a good consensus among their people that their country should go to war.
And in any event, Prime Minister Berlusconi is tying the withdrawal of Italian troops to the ability of Iraqis to govern themsevles, according to this article: Iraqi legislature convenes, Italy announces withdrawal of troops:
So it looks like PM Belusconi is saying “it’s fixed, let’s go.” The Italians may have a different conception of whether the situation is stablised than does President Bush, but it they think the job is done, how are they shirking their responsibilities?
Alright. So Spain sends around 1,300 troops to Iraq for the better part of a year, the Spanish people decide that they oppose this policy, and they pull out. Now they are cowards.
Meanwhile, Macedonia and Mongolia send about a platoon each, and they are heroic nations standing with the Coalition of Freedom.
What a load of crap. Spain has contributed way more to Iraq during its mission than 90 percent of the countries in Bush’s so-called Coalition. “Abandoning Iraq,” ha.
Pack your bags, Italy, Spain, Ukraine, Philippines, and others. The Bushies are trying to send you on a guilt trip.
Yeah… So?
If you subscribe to the idea that opinions cannot be wrong, then I guess you’re right. In any case, my opinion is that bringing “morality” into the discussion now is a position remote from reality, hence the reality check.
Actually I think I understand perfectly where you’re coming from, but since this isn’t in the pit, I am content with pointing out that morality isn’t at the helm, but politics.
Are you referring to Australia’s elections, Denmarks, Thailand’s or ours?
Or, and I realize I’m hoping beyond hope here, are you making some reference to the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq that I’m not getting?
Not so. It’s also about whether other countries want to support the strengthening of a unipolar world in which the sole superpower has a penchant for starting damn fool wars, or prefer a multipolar world in which no one starts damn fool wars. Tying the US down in Iraq, by withdrawing troops, abets the formation of a multipolar world.
Strange you should think a “multipolar” world would be any more peaceful than a unipolar, when near all historical evidence shows the opposite. From the relatively peaceful unipolar Pax Romana to the slaughter of the multipolar WWI & WWII and the bipolar Cold War where the whole fucking shebang was nearly blown all to hell. I should imagine the majority of those clamouring for a multipolar world are too young to remember the Cold War. Or do you just think it’s magically going to be all different next time? But which other power would you like to see rise to challenge the US? The EU? China or India? Islamism? And do you think it fair that the Iraqis should pay a heavy price in blood therefor?
Pax Romana peaceful? Tell that to the millions of Gauls killed by Julius Ceasar.
On the more general topic. The USA doesn’t need the material support of any allies - all it wants to do is pretend it has some international support. If it needs more money to fix the place it can raise taxes, if it needs more bodies on the ground it can send more troops or more national guard. If there ain’t enough of them then it can institute a draft.
For once we agree. However, if there are multiple nations, concentrating power in one nation’s “hands” is going to breed conflict as well. Ideally we’d achieve the unipolarity by everybody working towards a common goal.
It’s a tough call, as the USA has done many beneficial things for Europe in the past. However this isn’t an exclusive stance and it would be foolish to rely on others to be altruistic. Hence, I think it’s a sensible position for the EU to establish itself as counterbalance. Right now, the EU and it’s member states aren’t seen as an equal partner. If we can put some power behind our words, then perhaps this is going to change.
You’re right though, historically the balance of power idea didn’t work. I’d prefer giving it another shot though, if we cannot get the unipolarity by working together in unity.
Cite?
A draft? I don’t think so, and about the allies, how many British troops are in the southern part of Iraq, being helpful as to not having American forces stretched out through all of Iraq? Allies are necessary, unless you can tell me America could of helped Afghanistan all on its own, or would of done a better job as an example?
Your opinion is just laughable.
I second that. “Millions” Doesn’t sound right.
Allies are necessary, but if you want to keep them, you need to treat them accordingly.