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.
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?
the mandate ends in december, you know the UN mandate for occupation is ending this year, and Italy is having agradual pullout, emphasis on gradual, which will last until the mandate ends.
You want a cite for one of the seminal happenings in western history? And, a personal attack in GD to boot. Good-o.
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.
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.’
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.
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
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?
The difference being no one has put themselves forward to resolve those injustices and then backed out before fulfilling their mission.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
It’s the falling exchange rate. Your dollar buys a lot more gullibility stateside than overseas.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
You think?
Surely it was Tony Blair who told Bush what was necessary. :eek:
Or perhaps the UN? 
Exactly, just because they withdraw troops doesn’t mean they’ll withdraw support in terms of economic and technical assistance.
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.
Have any of these reasons been given by those pulling out? The reports I’ve seen have always been a bit fuzzy over reasoning.
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?
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.