Yeah, no doubt if the US hadn’t brought it up first, the other countries would have gone in on their own accord…
And who says foreign aid is a waste of money? It buys us all the faux legitimacy we need.
Thank God the American people have a fiery iconoclast like you to watch over them, Hydro. We’re all blown away by your scholarship yet again.
My vote to you. If we’re spending billions of dollars, let’s share it with countries that put soldier’s lives on the line. My family didn’t get a comp for my my dad going to Viet Nam
I can’t speak for all liberals, or all countries, but just personally, I hate Uzbekistan for “The Night of the Long Goats.” That’s right, “Black 1934.” You know exactly what I’m talking about, you bastards. You’re all dead to me.
Since you asked, oddly last time around (remember 1991?) the list of nations providing forces against Iraq was:
Argentina
Australia
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belgium
Canada
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Egypt
France
Germany (sort of, as their constitution forbade deployments south of the 25th parallel, so naval forces were only sent to the Mediterranean)
Greece
Italy
Kuwait
Morocco
New Zealand
The Netherlands
Nigeria
Norway
Pakistan
Poland
Portugal
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Spain
South Korea
Syria
UAE
USSR
UK
Source is Desert Victory by Norman Friedman with my apololgies to any nations I might have missed. While none of them contributed forces on the scale of the US, they did sent their young men and women into harms way last time around, not just sign up on a list as the coalition of the willing. This time around it was what, the UK, Australia and Poland?
I worked with a guy from Eritrea who lost five brothers in the fight against Ethiopia. His family finally raised enough money to send him to the US so he would not be the sixth and final son to die in the war. Might not seem like shit to you but it was one hell of a war to them.
Brutus, the fact that you’re a shrill, hysterical moron whose views are the product of epic sessions of glue huffing is a given. The fact that even if Michael Jackson were caught red handed in bed with a dead sheep and a live boy, his credibility would still eclipse yours is beyond dispute. The fact that you wouldn’t dream of regurgitating the Bush party line stuffed down your gullet like so much smegma encrusted cock and hence, fetal puppies floating in jars of formaldehyde have worthier, more balanced opinions on current events is blatantly obvious to all and sundry and may as well be added to the FAQ.
Nonetheless, in spite of the fact that the odds of anyone actually listening to you rival the odds of the desiccated, zombified corpse of Elvis Presley rising from the grave and piloting a UFO onto the head of the Loch Ness Monster, I have a cite to rival your ludicrous claim that Bush’s latest little excursion was multilateral in any meaningful sense of the word.
http://www.ips-dc.org/COERCED.pdf
The informative cite above exposes the “Coalition of the Willing” as nothing more than a coalition of the bribed, badgered and bullied. As they were bribed, badgered and bullied by the US with the sole purpose sugarcoating the planned invasion of Iraq with a gossamer thin veneer of legitimacy I see no reason to view the invasion as anything approaching multilateral. The US was driving the juggernaut, nearly all the other countries were merely passive passengers with no control over its direction, burdened with the knowledge that the US would probably slam on the brakes and reverse back over them if they tried to step off.
Multilateral my ass.
Batman, if he’s prepared.
When I first saw this list, I couldn’t help but be reminded of a scene from Major League.[ul]Manager: I’ve never heard of half of these guys, and the ones I do know are way past their prime.
________Most of these guys never had a prime. This guy here is dead!
Owner: _Well, cross him off then.[/ul]
Miller, I 'm a history buff, and I know what you speak of.
Once again, you duck the issue. The clamor from the Left is that this was a ‘unilateral’ action. Are you now prepared to accept reality and cede that point?
Regardless, here is the listing of Coalition contributions for Operation Iraqi Freedom. I see we were not blessed with French troops, yet somehow managed to eek out a victory. Will wonders never cease?
Mr. B, is that why they call Palau “The Emilio Estevez of the Pacific?”
The Long Road you are absolutely right. The Ethiopea-Eritrea war was one of the bloodiest little wars in the past century, and should not be as little known as it is. The Eritreans have a well deserved rep as being, man for man, some of the best soldiers in the world.
Revtim, you need to do more reading before you slag a whole country
Ben Hicks, you truly are a simple fool, aren’t you? You really expect your crys of, “Look! Look! A leftist ‘think tank’ has made a .PDF!” to be taken seriously?
Mmm, Brutus, I take less seriously people who think a logical fallacy will win an argument.
Interesting list, Brutus, though I note the widespread use of the phrase “prepared to deploy” rather than “deployed” as well as the fact that the list is entitled “INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AND COALITION CONTRIBUTION TO OPERATIONAL IRAQI FREEDOM AND POST-WAR IRAQ.” Bit of a distinction, don’t you think?
Side note: the Ethiopian-Eritrean war was a truly horrible experience in trench warfare with more modern weapons, but unfortunately received very little attention in the western press.
I hope nobody was thinking of “unilateral” forces. Considering ther are 32 countries that are part of the “coalition” forces.
-
As already asked, where is your cite for “US action against Iraq was unilateral”?
-
No doubt you think ‘liberal’ is some term of abuse. Over here, our third largest party (used to be second) was called ‘the Liberal party’ (they’re now called ‘the Liberal Democrats’.)
-
Where is your cite for liberals disbelieving in these countries? (Oh, it was satire, was it?)
-
As far as I know, the UK is the only serious member of the coalition. (We did send troops.)
Here is a brief expansion of how that happened:
-
the US and the UK have a special relationship, based on historical links, language and culture
-
having had terrorists in Northern Ireland for centuries, we were especially sympathetic over 9/11. When the US rightly wanted to pursue Bin Laden in Afghanistan, we supported UN resolutions to do so (and duly sent troops).
-
when Iraq became a target, Blair spent ages on international diplomacy, trying to get support for UN resolutions. (In case your memory fails, Saddam was accused of defying the UN over WMDs, not of being a war criminal.)
-
when it became clear that Bush was going to ignore the UN (who thought war was premature, and the weapons inspectors should have more time in Iraq), Blair made a speech to the UK Parliament.
Apparently Saddam had obtained nuclear weapons material from Africa, had WMD’s trained on British bases ready to use at 45 minutes notice and it was vital to go in immediately.
There was unease, but this was a terrifying picture. UK lives were at stake.
So we went in with the US. -
since then, all Blair’s claims have been discredited. Millions of UK citizens have marched in anti-war protests. There is a judicial enquiry into the suicide of a UK weapons expert, who was involved in the claims above. Bush was invited here on a State visit, but felt unable to meet the public.
-
there are several UK citizens still held without legal advice or prospect of trial in Guantanamo Bay (described by senior lawyers as an abuse of human rights)
So please don’t say that the UK backs the US actions in Iraq. We were lied to (and Government Ministers have since resigned over it).
Having gone in there, we are all hoping that it ends well. We are also hoping that Bush will not invade somewhere else (saying they were responsible for 9/11).
The US action in Afghanistan we certainly support - but not Iraq.
P.S. I note you have Turkey down as a member of the coalition. I thought they refused the US access, which changed the entire battle plan. And this refusal continued, even when the US put millions of dollars on the table…
(1) I was against the war.
but…
(2) The article is a steaming pile of shit. It completely fails to address the issue of WHY the United Kingdom, Australia, Spain, South Korea, Italy, Denmark and Japan joined the coalition. It provides fairly useful commentary as to the reasons why several developing nations may have signed up, but doesn’t even attempt to engage the more difficult issue of why other highly developed, independent and strong nations were with the US.
(Could it be – gasp! – that they though it was the right thing to do?)
Oh, the report writers try to wave this away with “[these governments] appear to place theirstanding vis-à-vis Washington ahead of political legitimacy at home.” Nice hand-waving, but entirely disingenuous.
**tomndebb:
**“Every country”? Oh, please. Read the list again. When come back, bring evidence.
(3) Did I mention I was against the war? That shouldn’t stop me – or anyone, for that matter – for engaging the issue with honesty.
Jervoise
But Brutus is right about that stupid PDF. For a report about the “Coalition of the Coerced”, it doesn’t talk much about the coercing of the actual Coalition countries, instead focusing on the member nations of the Secutiy Council. My earlier question about the main Coalition partners still stands. And what is the standard for “coercion” anyway? Anytime you trade favors between two unequally powerful countries is coercion? That is what diplomacy is, the trading of favors – “we’ll do x thing for you, or keep doing x thing that we were already doing to your advantage, if you say you favor our policy in Iraq”. I don’t understand how “international” an action needs to be to be legitimate. UNSC approval? It was never going to happen for Iraq, and if you believe it’s the standard, I hope you think the action in Kosovo was illegitimate. Or how many countries (and which countries) do you need to say it was OK? What exactly is the standard around here, if you’re making a moral case on multilateralism?
Look, I was against the war too, and partially because I didn’t think there were enough countries on our side, but that was a strategic, not moral judgment. The reason we needed more countries (and “better” countries, so to speak) was because the US does not do effective peacekeeping. But I don’t for a minute think that forcibly deposing a dictator is wrong just because France and Germany are against it.