# Are Iraqi coalition dissenters shirking their responsibilities **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 16, 2005, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781 "2005-03-16T07:02:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/21 "2005-03-16T16:15:09Z")
> [@](#): > > Allies are necessary, but if you want to keep them, you need to treat them accordingly. Yes. The US has treated the UK accordingly, just because 3 countries are withdrawing before the mandate for foriegn occupation in december 2005 runs out, doesn’t mean the coalition is collapsing. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/22 "2005-03-16T16:21:10Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Yes. The US has treated the UK accordingly, just because 3 countries are withdrawing before the mandate for foriegn occupation in december 2005 runs out, doesn’t mean the coalition is collapsing. Sure, it does. Countries are leaving the coalition. The very definition of a collapse. Now, as to the extent of the collapse, that I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/23 "2005-03-16T16:27:00Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > So it looks like PM Belusconi is saying “it’s fixed, let’s go.” Or even: “If its fixed in September, we’ll start to go”. Thanks for pointing this out **Northern Piper**. It shows the Italian pull-out in a completely different light, one that appears beyond reproach. One thing mentioned in the OP and not yet addressed is how the media in dissenting nations is treating the mission of their troops and whether all voices are calling for a pull-out or whether some commentators are insisting their forces should stay and see the job through. Any ideas? ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/24 "2005-03-16T16:44:14Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Sure, it does. Countries are leaving the coalition. The very definition of a collapse. Now, as to the extent of the collapse, that I don’t know. the mandate ends in december, you know the UN mandate for occupation is ending this year, and Italy is having a_gradual_ pullout, emphasis on _gradual_, which will last until the mandate ends. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/25 "2005-03-16T16:53:13Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > 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. You want a cite for one of the seminal happenings in western history? And, a personal attack in GD to boot. Good-o. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/26 "2005-03-16T16:54:20Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > Some, including the Spanish, have already gone - now the [Italians](http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050316/wl_asia_afp/italyiraqaustralia_050316054326), 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. There are serious problems in many countries. In Burma, a democratically elected Government has been overthrown by a military dictatorship. Tibet was invaded by China decades ago. I think what is happening is that Bush looks bad if countries withdraw from Iraq. > [@marky33](#): > > 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? The ‘job’ the UK Parliament agreed to do was based largely on this: ‘Tony Blair’s headline-grabbing claim that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to do so…’ Sadly it now emerges that claim ‘…was based on hearsay information.’ > **[45-minute claim on Iraq was hearsay](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/aug/16/davidkelly.iraq)** > > Tony Blair's headline-grabbing claim that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to do so was based on hearsay information, the Guardian has learned. Since there were no such weapons, the UK population are pretty annoyed at being deceived. Given that no suitable UN resolution was agreed and that the ‘reasons’ for us staying keep changing (find Saddam / protect oil supplies / save Iraqi art treasures / bring democracy to Iraq / save Iraq from terrorists / stop an Iraqi civil war), it’s easy to see why we want to bring UK troops home. > [@marky33](#): > > 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)? I don’t think the UK has a record of ‘having little stomach for the struggle’. Some of us don’t care for a war where we suspect it was basically Bush trying to bluff the US electorate into re-electing him ‘because Saddam was behind 9/11’. Here are some stories in one UK newspaper about Iraq: March 16: At least 26 prisoners have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 in what US military investigators have concluded or suspect were acts of criminal homicide, the New York Times reported today. March 16: The Pentagon accused of sitting on a damaging report from its own auditors about a $108.4m (£56.6m) overcharge by Halliburton for its services in Iraq. March 12: The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, yesterday launched an investigation into the concealment from the public of the advice given by the attorney general on the legality of the invasion of Iraq. March 11: Experts in public health from six countries, including the UK, castigate the Uk and US governments for failing to investigate the deaths of civilians caught up in the conflict in Iraq. March 11: A suicide bomb tore through a packed funeral ceremony at a Shia mosque in Mosul yesterday, killing at least 30 people and wounding 100. March 8: An RAF Hercules transport aircraft which crashed in Iraq causing the biggest single loss of British life since the invasion is likely to have been shot down by insurgents, a board of inquiry indicated yesterday. March 7: As Italy buried the intelligence officer killed by American fire while escorting a freed hostage to Baghdad airport, many Italians are questioning their country’s role in Iraq and its relationship with the US, reports John Hooper from Rome. March 9: Women and children among victims. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/0%2C2759%2C423009%2C00.html](http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/0%2C2759%2C423009%2C00.html) As for the ‘dirty work’, are you referring to Abu Graib? The stories above? Given that the US refuses to sign up to international projects like Kyoto or the International War Crimes tribunal, why does it expect everyone to co-operate with a dodgy war? ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/27 "2005-03-16T17:16:26Z")
> [@glee](#): > > There are serious problems in many countries. In Burma, a democratically elected Government has been overthrown by a military dictatorship. Tibet was invaded by China decades ago. The difference being no one has put themselves forward to resolve those injustices and then backed out before fulfilling their mission. > [@glee](#): > > Some of us don’t care for a war where we suspect it was basically Bush trying to bluff the US electorate into re-electing him ‘because Saddam was behind 9/11’. I was asking specifically about countries that signed up to help with reconstruction/post-war security. I, for one, think the war was unjustified but Iraq is a bloody mess now and saying to the US, “Its your mess, you clear it up” is neither constructive nor helpful to the Iraqi people. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/28 "2005-03-16T17:27:11Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Pax Romana peaceful? Tell that to the millions of Gauls killed by Julius Ceasar. Millions (as in at least two million) is probably widely exaggerated even though the Romans themselves counted three millions deaths, but a great many were killed. Pax Romana is normally taken to be the time after Cesar, between 27 BC – 180 AD (from Augustus to the death of Marcus Aurelius) where Rome’s power was unrivalled. Some, in a fit of typical modern rashness, has termed the years since the fall of The Soviet as Pax America. Lets give it a century and see how it looks. > [@Optihut](#): > > 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. I too would like to see a strong Europe once again rise to be a world power. I’m just very suspicious of those groups, on the left mainly, that believe it should be done with the express purpose to counter American power, and have nothing but derision for those who think it could be done with some kind of “soft-power”. Also I doubt it would lead to a more peaceful world. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/29 "2005-03-16T17:47:19Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > The difference being no one has put themselves forward to resolve those injustices and then backed out before fulfilling their mission. This reads as if the US mission was to bring democracy to Iraq. **It wasn’t.** If Saddam had admitted he had no weapons (and proved it by allowing inspectors in), the US would **not** have invaded. There is no point in claiming the US is some sort of superhero, when it has no plans to do anything about other injustices. > [@marky33](#): > > I was asking specifically about countries that signed up to help with reconstruction/post-war security. > I, for one, think the war was unjustified but Iraq is a bloody mess now and saying to the US, “Its your mess, you clear it up” is neither constructive nor helpful to the Iraqi people. Firstly I think you mean countries that responded to US pressure / bribes. Secondly, if the US expects allies to help and insults those who won’t, and threatens to invade other countries, then there is going to be international reluctance. You sensibly asked about foreign press reporting. From my link, can you see how the Iraq war looks to us? In particular, Tony Blair has never collected his shiny US Medal, because he knows it will cause an electoral storm if he does. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/30 "2005-03-16T18:27:01Z")
Considering how the Bush Administration has spent the previous four years loudly snubbing any international response that wasn’t unquestioning acquiescence (“Old Europe,” anyone?), why is _anyone_ surprised that they’re willing to let us clean up after ourselves? ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/31 "2005-03-16T18:50:40Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > 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. I can think of several reasons. The job required is something other than the one they agreed to perform. The job required is outside the capabilities of their troops (or outside the abilities of the troop presence they can maintain for the indefinite future). Given the situation on the ground they question the US’s willingness to devote the necessary resources to the situation. Given their perception of the situation on the ground it may be that they feel that their presence on the ground isn’t helping matters, or is having a cost out of proportion to the effect. Possibly they are just not feeling the love from the US. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/32 "2005-03-16T19:02:28Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Considering how the Bush Administration has spent the previous four years loudly snubbing any international response that wasn’t unquestioning acquiescence (“Old Europe,” anyone?), why is _anyone_ surprised that they’re willing to let us clean up after ourselves? It’s the falling exchange rate. Your dollar buys a lot more gullibility stateside than overseas. ---
**Author:** ![Estilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Estilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Estilicon)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/33 "2005-03-16T19:18:19Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Pax Romana peaceful? Tell that to the millions of Gauls killed by Julius Ceasar. > > . Add me to the cite request. They weren’t millions and besides the romans at least had something of legitimacy to attack gaul, do you remember the capitol’s goose incident? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/34 "2005-03-16T19:53:59Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Pax Romana peaceful? Tell that to the millions of Gauls killed by Julius Ceasar. > [@tagos](#): > > You want a cite for one of the seminal happenings in western history? And, a personal attack in GD to boot. Good-o. Just to put in my two cents, my understanding is that Pax Romana started with Augustus Caesar (i.e. after Julius), and refered to INTERNAL peace of the empire, not external wars (which the conquest of Gaul would have been, no?)…oh, and I seriously doubt there WERE millions of Gauls to be killed by Julius Ceasar in any case. More like thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. My suggestion would be to simply withdraw the comment and use another analogy or actually look it up and see if I’m right and post THAT as your cite (as multiple people did ask you for it). However you want to handle it. > [@Sevastopol](#): > > My understanding is that the war is unpopular in every nation, except the US. Thats probably pretty true, but then going to war with Germany was unpopular in Europe before they were forced too it…and unpopular in the US until WE were dragged into another European cluster fuck. So, the moral of this story is you can’t always count on popularity as to whether or not an issue is valid enough to go to war over. I make no call on Iraq…merely point out that nations don’t do things to win popularity contests. > [@marky33](#): > > Some, including the Spanish, have already gone - now the Italians, Dutch and Ukranians are abandoning Iraq. They aren’t abandoning Iraq…they are doing what they feel is in their best national interests (with a healthy does of catering to the masses in their various nations). I think they are wrong at this point, but hey…I’m not an elected official in any of those nations either so its easy for me to say. > [@marky33](#): > > 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. Certainly. However, like most of the rest of the world, they are counting on the US to do the heavy lifting so they can afford to kick back and criticize us, or to cater to their own voter base…secure in the knowledge that the US will fix it. Or, if we don’t fix it secure in the knowledge of who is squarely to blame. > [@marky33](#): > > 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? Easy…they can do it because they feel its in their best interests…or they feel its in the best interest of their own political carreers anyway. And as I said, they can do it because frankly the only nations that REALLY count in Iraq are the US and the UK…and even the UK is a lesser partner. If THEY withdraw it will be a serious blow, but the US can still go on. If the anti-war/anti-America crowd ever gets its wet dream and the US pulls out though…well, that will be all she wrote for Iraq (though give it another year or so and this might not NECESSARILY be the case anymore). > [@marky33](#): > > 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. Italy is using that as an excuse…its not a real reason to withdraw. As to having the stomach for the struggle, they probably DON’T have it. Think it through. At home the occupation of Iraq in these various nations is incredibly unpopular with the folks who vote. There are various reasons for this which I won’t get into, but its the reality. So from the politicians perspective in these nations, its in their best interest to leave if they can. After all, as I said, the US is out there to do the real work anyway. > [@marky33](#): > > 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)? I think most of the really rabid types would be VERY happy if all the nations left Iraq…and had left Iraq months ago (or better yet never went there at all…I might even agree with that particular sentiment). The reality of a horrible multi-sided civil war and the massive amounts of bloodshed that would entail would never cross their minds I’m sure…and when it did happen they’d just shake their heads saddly and blame the US for creating the mess…and probably blaming them for leaving too. In the various nations pulling out or about to pull out though I’m sure they will be happy enough to have their troops home and out of harms way. I’m sure they won’t feel bad at all letting the US do the dirty work…they will simply blame the US for everything that goes bad and try and downplay anything that goes well with blind nuts and squirels analogies. 😉 And to a certain degree they will be right about that as the US was the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq -XT ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/35 "2005-03-16T21:02:27Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > And to a certain degree they will be right about that as the US was the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq. > -XT You think? Surely it was Tony Blair who told Bush what was necessary. :eek: Or perhaps the UN? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/36 "2005-03-16T21:51:20Z")
> [@](#): > > They aren’t abandoning Iraq…they are doing what they feel is in their best national interests (with a healthy does of catering to the masses in their various nations). I think they are wrong at this point, but hey…I’m not an elected official in any of those nations either so its easy for me to say. Exactly, just because they withdraw _troops_ doesn’t mean they’ll withdraw support in terms of economic and technical assistance. ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/37 "2005-03-17T09:41:45Z")
> [@glee](#): > > There is no point in claiming the US is some sort of superhero, when it has no plans to do anything about other injustices. I was doing nothing of the sort - I was just saying Burma and Tibet have no place in ths discussion because they have never been in the situation Iraq is now. ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/38 "2005-03-17T09:46:37Z")
> [@MMI](#): > > I can think of several reasons. The job required is something other than the one they agreed to perform. The job required is outside the capabilities of their troops (or outside the abilities of the troop presence they can maintain for the indefinite future). Given the situation on the ground they question the US’s willingness to devote the necessary resources to the situation. Given their perception of the situation on the ground it may be that they feel that their presence on the ground isn’t helping matters, or is having a cost out of proportion to the effect. Possibly they are just not feeling the love from the US. Have any of these reasons been given by those pulling out? The reports I’ve seen have always been a bit fuzzy over reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/39 "2005-03-17T09:55:46Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > They aren’t abandoning Iraq…they are doing what they feel is in their best national interests (with a healthy does of catering to the masses in their various nations). I understand that politicians are pandering to their people. But what about those populations – isn’t there any sense at all within the countries that are withdrawing that they are letting the side down - they are not fulfilling their promises of help? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/40 "2005-03-17T14:07:48Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Just to put in my two cents, my understanding is that Pax Romana started with Augustus Caesar (i.e. after Julius), and refered to INTERNAL peace of the empire, not external wars (which the conquest of Gaul would have been, no?)…oh, and I seriously doubt there WERE millions of Gauls to be killed by Julius Ceasar in any case. More like thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. My suggestion would be to simply withdraw the comment and use another analogy or actually look it up and see if I’m right and post THAT as your cite (as multiple people did ask you for it). However you want to handle it. > > -XT The accepted minimum figure (Rubicon and Oxford Companion) for just JC’s jaunt into Gaul is over 1 million dead and further million plus enslaved. JC himself claimed 3-5 million dead or enslaved in his Commentaries. That ignores deaths from the rest of the expansion into western Europe. If you want to define Pax Romana as how peaceful everything was once the Romans had slaughtered everybody, please feel free. I don’t see how that helps make the case for a US Pax. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781.md?page=3)